| 1. |
- Eliasson, Kristina, 1979-
(författare)
-
Ergonomists’ risk assessments : From guesstimates to strategic approaches
- 2020
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Musculoskeletal disorders are among the most prevalent causes of work-related ill-health, consequently risk assessments of hazardous factors related to these disorders are important for prevention. Occupational Health Services (OHS) providers are independent experts, supporting employers regarding work environment issues and rehabilitation. Ergonomists represents one of the professions within OHS, and risk assessment regarding musculoskeletal disorders is within the scope of their work tasks. The overall objective was to explore Swedish ergonomists’ practices and approaches with risk assessments, in order to contribute new knowledge about how ergonomists’ work methods can be further developed to improve prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Paper I explored the process of risk assessment assignments and the ergonomists’ use of observation-based risk-assessment tools. The result showed a lack of systematic approaches regarding risk assessment assignments and limited use and knowledge of observation-based risk-assessment tools. In Paper II inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of risk assessments, without the use of an explicit observational method were assessed. The results showed a non-acceptable reliability. Paper III explored ergonomists experiences of an e-learning concept for knowledge translation in the OHS context. The e-learning concept was considered as feasible. The knowledge translation inspired increased use of risk-assessment tools, changes in the risk assessment procedures, e.g. selection of tools, and employing a participatory approach. Paper IV described the development of a process model for occupational health surveillance for workers exposed to hand-intensive work (HIW-model), and the studies that will explore the model. Paper V explored company representatives’ experiences of the HIW-model, and factors which facilitated the execution of the model. The model contributed to increased risk awareness and understanding of how individual workers’ musculoskeletal ill-health relates to exposures in work. Facilitating factors were: a joint start-up meeting in which the process was planned, clear communication, and clarity regarding the ownership of the process. In conclusion, the findings showed that ergonomists’ expertise is needed in the entire risk management process and not only in the risk assessment phase. In this process, the ergonomists need to be active and take the expert role (which includes a stocked toolbox) and support the employer through the whole risk management process from initiation to evaluation of risk controlling measures.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eliasson, Kristina, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring ergonomists' experiences after participation in a theoretical and practical research project in observational risk assessment tools
- 2022
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1080-3548 .- 2376-9130. ; 28:2, s. 1136-1144
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Eliasson, Kristina, 1979-
(författare)
-
Occupational health services in the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders : Processes, tools and organizational aspects
- 2017
-
Licentiatavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are associated with high costs and it is essential to prevent them. Occupational Health Services(OHS) provide expert services regarding work environment, health and rehabilitation of work related disorders. Risk assessments of the work environment can be an initial step for preventive measures, and ergonomists can be assigned by clients to assess exposures in the work environment. For such assignments different tools can be used. The aim of this thesis was to explore prerequisites, processes and practices of OHS consultants in Sweden within the domain of primary prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. This was explored through the work of ergonomists in their role of assessing ergonomics risks. The research methodology was both quantitative and qualitative. Data collection includes a web questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and inter- and intra-observer reliability tests. The results shows that ergonomics risk assessments were most commonly initiated reactively and a systematic work methodology for the risk assessment process was often lacking. Swedish ergonomists used only a few standardized tools for risk assessment. The Ergonomics provision from the Swedish Work Environment Authority, AFS-98, was widely used, but other observation-based tools were used far less often. Ergonomics risks were often assessed solely by means of observation, based on ergonomists’ knowledge and experience. The results also pointed to that that the reliability was not acceptable when risk assessment was performed without any standardized tool. Furthermore, the results point to that support from the OHS organizations is an important prerequisite for ergonomists to work with primary prevention. Further, opportunities for specialization within a specific industry sector seem to facilitate ergonomic interventions. It is also important to have close relationships with clients and to make them aware about ergonomists competence. Conclusively, this thesis identifies a numbers of areas in which OHS must develop to improve primary preventive services regarding work environment.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Forsman, Mikael, et al.
(författare)
-
Inter-ergonomist Reliability in Rating Risk Level - without any Specific Method - in Ten Video Recorded Work Tasks
- 2014
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 1. IntroductionRecently, 30 observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures at work were evaluated through a literature review (Takala et al., 2010). It was found that several methods are insufficiently tested in terms of validity and reliability. In only in a few cases have estimates of the components of the methods been validated against technical measurements. Also comparisons between methods' resulting risk levels are rare. Swedish Work Environment Authority has recently increased the demands on ergonomic risk assessments. These assessments are usually made by ergonomists in occupational health services (OHS).This study is included in a larger on-going project, with the overall purpose to evaluate six observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures of repetitive work in respect of validity, reliability and usability, as well as provide information on which of the methods are best suited for practitioners in risk assessment of repetitive work. The methods' resulting risk levels are compared not only to each other, but also to ergonomists’ “own” risk estimates (i.e., done without any specific method). The specific aim of this sub-study was to investigate the inter-observer reliability of ergonomists’ own risk estimates.2. MethodsNine OHS-ergonomists, all with more than 5 years of experience of general ergonomic risk assessments, made risk assessments of 10 different video-recorded (2-6 minutes) work-tasks (supermarket work, meat cutting and packing, engine assembly, cleaning, post sorting and hairdressing). Video sequences of two or three camera angles were synchronized and showed together. For each work-task, the ergonomists were given data of the work task length (see Table 1), pause- and rests schedules, weights of handled goods, physical factors, and the employees own ratings of discomfort, work demands and own control.The ergonomist could pause the playback as needed, the maximum allocated time per work-task assessment was 20 minutes. The risk of musculoskeletal disorders and need for improvements was rated into green (no risk), yellow (investigate further), and red (immediate risk) categories. Ratings were done for 8 specific body regions: neck, lower back, right and left shoulders, -arms/elbows, and -wrists/hands), and for one over-all risk level.The agreement of the ratings (in percent), and Light’s multi-observer kappa (i.e. Cohen’s pairwise kappa averaged over all pairs; Light, 1971; Cohen, 1960) were calculated per body region and for the over-all risk assessment.3. ResultsFor the 720 (9 ergonomists, 8 body regions, 10 work tasks) risk assessments of the separate body regions, 37% were green, 44% yellow and 19% red. For over-all risk assessments (Table 1), 14% were green, 50% yellow and 36% red.Table 1. Work tasks, hours per work task per work day, and the ergonomists ratings of over risk As seen in Table 1, the consistency between the observers differed markedly. For three of the work tasks all three categories were represented, only in one task all ergonomists rated the over-all risk equally. The average agreement of the ratings were 48% regarding the body regions, and 57% regarding the over-all risk assessments, Light’s kappa was 0.18 and 0.30, respectively.4. DiscussionThe results showed fair inter-observer reliability according to Altman’s table for interpretation of kappa (kappa between 0.21 and 0.40; Altman, 1991). These kappa values will, in the major project, be compared to those of six systematic observation methods.5. ReferencesAltman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall.Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20(1):37–46.Light RJ. Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin. 1971;76(5):365–377.Takala EP et al. 2010. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand J Work E
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Forsman, Mikael, et al.
(författare)
-
Reliability in twelve ergonomists’ three-category risk ratings in ten video recorded work tasks.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Proceedings 19<sup>th</sup> Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Swedish Work Environment Authority has recently increased the demands on ergonomic risk assessments. These assessments are usually made by ergonomists in occupational health services (OHS). Although they are many observational methods that may be used (Takala, Pehkonen et al. 2010), the ergonomists often do risk assessment by sole observation, based on his/her own knowledge and experience, without the use of any specific method.This study is included in a larger on-going OBS project, with the overall purpose to evaluate six observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures of repetitive work in respect of validity, reliability and usability, as well as provide information on which of the methods are best suited for practitioners in risk assessment of repetitive work. The methods' resulting risk levels will be compared not only to each other, but also to the ergonomists’ “own” assessments (without any specific method) of the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders.The specific aim of this sub-study was to investigate the inter-observer reliability of ergonomists’ own risk assessments without any specific method
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Kjellberg, Katarina, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparisons of six observational methods for risk assessment of repetitive work - results from a consensus assessment
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Proceedings 19<sup>th</sup> Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- During last decades several risk assessment methods for physical ergonomics have been developed. In a literature review 30 observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures at work were evaluated (1). It was found that several methods are insufficiently tested in terms of validity and reliability. Comparisons between methods' resulting risk levels are rare. The Swedish Work Environment Authority has recently emphasized the demands on risk assessments of musculoskeletal disorders (2). Practitioners mostly use observational methods to assess biomechanical risks(1). Despite a recent study comparing eight methods evaluating risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders (3), there is a lack of knowledge and guidance on which methods are the most effective and valid.This study is part of a larger on-going project, the OBS-project, with the overall purpose to evaluate six observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures of repetitive work in respect of validity, reliability and usability. A further purpose is to provide information on which of the methods are best suited for practitioners in risk assessment of repetitive work. The specific aim of this sub-study was to investigate the agreement between six observational methods for risk assessment of repetitive work by comparing the risk levels as assessed by a group of experts.
|
|
