| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergsten, Eva L., 1969-, et al.
(författare)
-
Psychosocial work factors and musculoskeletal pain among Swedish flight baggage handlers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 19<sup>th</sup> Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Melbourne, 9-14 August 2015.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Flight baggage handlers are employed by handling companies engaged in sorting, loading and unloading luggage, cargo and mail, so called ramp service work. After check-in, luggage are transported through a sorting area and further out to the ramp. This transportation involves manual handling by baggage handlers at several stages, using conveyor belts, carts and trucks for transport. In addition to these tasks, baggage handlers are also engaged in communicating with air traffic controllers directing air traffic on the ground, towing aircrafts to gates and serving them with auxiliary power units, brakes and light. Baggage handling services are similar in all larger airports, and so baggage handlers perform similar tasks all over the world. In Sweden the handlers’ union claimed a high prevalence of low back and shoulder pain and a dissatisfying psychosocial work environment, but systematically collected empirical data were not available, and the literature was surprisingly sparse, considering that the occupation is global. Thus, a comprehensive project initiated by the Vocational Training and Working Environment Council, TYA, in Sweden - a council formed by employers’ and employees’ organizations in the transportation sector -was conducted at 14 handling companies in six Swedish airports between 2010 and 2012. The project aimed to document the physical and psychosocial work environment and to contribute to the development of ergonomic interventions within this occupation, which could, eventually, lead to better health among the employees. The present study was part of this project, in aiming at documenting psychosocial exposures and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the flight baggage handler population, and at determining possible associations between exposures and disorders.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bergsten, Eva L., 1969-, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of an ergonomic intervention in Swedish flight baggage handlers
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Flight baggage handling is a worldwide occupation where baggage and cargo is sorted, loaded and unloaded on and off aircrafts. With the ultimate purpose of reducing and preventing musculoskeletal disorders among flight baggage handlers in Sweden, the Vocational Training and Working Environment Council (TYA) - a council formed by employers and unions in the Swedish transportation sector – initiated and implemented a project (2010-2012). This project revealed that ergonomics equipment was not used adequately, and this was considered a major factor of concern. Therefore, a training program was initiated 2014 in one handling company, aiming to improve ergonomics, behavior and attitudes. We evaluated the implementation process with regard to process items, intermediate outcomes, barriers and facilitators; for the purpose of gaining knowledge that could facilitate successful implementation in other handling companies. Methods: A mixed methods design was applied, based on qualitative and quantitative data. We evaluated six process items, recruitment, context, reach, dose delivered, dose received and satisfaction; intermediate outcomes of the intervention; skills, confidence and behaviour in the workforce; barriers and facilitators for successful implementation. Data was retrieved using company data, course evaluations, web questionnaires, and telephone interviews with company ‘observers’ and key persons. Preliminary results: The implementation process was judged to be feasible with regard to some of the process items. According to the informants, work place behaviour related to use of equipment had, however, not changed after the training period. Reported barriers were, 1) insufficient time and leader support for practicing new procedures during and after the training, 2) simultaneous reorganization of teams and work tasks, 3) lack of follow-up of the training, which would have supported good performance according to the informants. Conclusion: The implementation process was hampered by barriers, some of which could be addressed in future ergonomics training programs in other baggage handling companies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bergsten, Eva L., 1969-, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation of an ergonomics intervention in a Swedish flight baggage handling company : a process evaluation
- 2018
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 13:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To conduct a process evaluation of the implementation of an ergonomics training program aimed at increasing the use of loading assist devices in flight baggage handling.Methods: Feasibility (recruitment, reach, context, dose delivered, dose received, satisfaction); intermediate outcomes (skills, confidence and behaviors); and barriers and facilitators of the training intervention were assessed by qualitative and quantitative methods.Results: Implementation proved feasible regarding dose delivered, dose received and satisfaction. Confidence among participants in the training program in using and talking about devices, observed use of devices among colleagues, and internal feedback on work behavior increased significantly (p<0.01). Main facilitators were self-efficacy, motivation, and perceived utility of training among the trainees. Barriers included lack of peer support, opportunities to observe and practice behaviors, and follow-up activities; as well as staff reduction and job insecurity.Conclusions: In identifying important barriers and facilitators for a successful outcome, our study can help supporting the effectiveness of future interventions. Our results show that barriers caused by organizational changes may likely be alleviated by recruiting motivated trainees and securing strong organizational support for the implementation.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
