Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

BACKGROUND: Several observation-based risk-assessment tools have been developed in recent decades. Studies reporting their use often focus only on the user, the ergonomist. The influence of context and the attributes of the tools may also affect the use but are factors that are seldom considered. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the process of risk-assessment assignments and to identify factors influencing the use of research-based observation-based risk-assessment tools among Swedish ergonomists, with a background as reg. physiotherapists, employed in Occupational Health Services (OHS). METHODS: A web-based questionnaire (n = 70) was combined with semi-structured interviews (n = 12). RESULTS: There was limited use of several observation-based risk-assessment tools. Furthermore, the results showed that ergonomics risk-assessment assignments are most commonly initiated reactively and that interventions were seldom evaluated. Factors that influence use are related both to the ergonomist and to the attributes of the tools as well as to contextual factors assigned to authorities, and internal organisations both within occupational health service companies and client companies. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of systematic approaches in ergonomics risks assessment and low use and knowledge of risk-assessment tools. This indicates that there is a need to support OHS companies in implementing systematic tools in their practice.

A common way to conduct practical risk assessments is to observe a job and report the observed long term risks for musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter- and intra-observer reliability of ergonomists' risk assessments without the support of an explicit risk assessment method. Twenty-one experienced ergonomists assessed the risk level (low, moderate, high risk) of eight upper body regions, as well as the global risk of 10 video recorded work tasks. Intra-observer reliability was assessed by having nine of the ergonomists repeat the procedure at least three weeks after the first assessment. The ergonomists made their risk assessment based on his/her experience and knowledge. The statistical parameters of reliability included agreement in %, kappa, linearly weighted kappa, intraclass correlation and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The average inter-observer agreement of the global risk was 53% and the corresponding weighted kappa (K-w) was 0.32, indicating fair reliability. The intra-observer agreement was 61% and 0.41 (K-w). This study indicates that risk assessments of the upper body, without the use of an explicit observational method, have non-acceptable reliability. It is therefore recommended to use systematic risk assessment methods to a higher degree.

Objective. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how ergonomists experienced an e-learning concept as a tool for knowledge translation; furthermore, to explore what, if any, impact the knowledge translation had regarding the ergonomists’ work with risk assessments.

Methods. Twelve Swedish ergonomists employed in the occupational health service (OHS) participated in a research project, which included an e-learning program in risk assessment training. Focus group interviews and individual interviews were used for data collection.

Results. The ergonomists appreciated the e-learning concept, e.g., its flexibility enabled them to decide when and where to practice. The concept was considered feasible within the context of the OHS. The ergonomists experienced an increased knowledge of different observation-based risk assessment tools, which expanded their professional toolboxes. Additionally, they began to reflect more regarding the reliability of risk assessment tools and how to enhance quality in risk assessment assignments.

Conclusion. This study showed that e-learning may comprise an efficient knowledge translation for improved risk assessments in the OHS. The program contributed to changes in ergonomists’ risk assessment procedures, e.g., in the selection of tools, increasing the number of observers, employing a participatory approach and more often actively involving stakeholders during the risk assessment process.