A Health-Impact Assessment of an Ergonomic Measure to Reduce the Risk of Work-Related Lower Back Pain, Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome and Knee Osteoarthritis among Floor Layers in The Netherlands.

Sand-cement-bound screed floor layers are at risk of work-related lower back pain, lumbosacral radicular syndrome and knee osteoarthritis, given their working technique of levelling screed with their trunk bent while mainly supported by their hands and knees. To reduce the physical demands of bending of the trunk and kneeling, a manually movable screed-levelling machine was developed for floor layers in the Netherlands. The aim of this paper is to estimate the potential health gains of working with a manually movable screed-levelling machine on the risk of lower back pain (LBP), lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) and knee osteoarthritis (KOA) compared to traditional working techniques. This potential health gain was assessed using the epidemiological population estimates of the Population Attributable Fraction (PAF) and the Potential Impact Fraction (PIF), combined with work-related risk estimates for these three disorders from systematic reviews. The percentage of workers exceeding these risk estimates was based on worksite observations among 28 floor layers. For LBP, 16/18 workers were at risk when using traditional working techniques, with a PAF = 38%, and for those using a manually movable screed-levelling machine, this was 6/10 with a PIF = 13%. For LRS, these data were 16/18 with a PAF = 55% and 14/18 with a PIF = 18%, and for KOA, 8/10 with a PAF = 35% and 2/10 with a PIF = 26%. A manually movable screed-levelling machine might have a significant impact on the prevention of LBP, LRS and KOA among floor layers in the Netherlands, and health-impact assessments are a feasible approach for assessing health gains in an efficient way.

Evaluation of the effects of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies.

To improve the use of ergonomics tools by construction workers, the effect of two guidance strategies - a face-to-face strategy (F2F) and an e-guidance strategy (EG) - of a participatory ergonomics intervention was studied. Twelve construction companies were randomly assigned to the F2F group or the EG group. The primary outcome measure, the percentage of workers using ergonomics tools, and secondary outcome measures - work ability, physical functioning and limitations due to physical problems - were assessed using surveys at baseline and after 6 months. Additionally, a cost-benefit analysis was performed on company level. No differences in primary and secondary outcomes were found with the exception of the use of ergonomics tools to adjust working height (F2F +1%; EG +10%; p = .001). Newly-implemented tools were used by 23% (F2F) and 42% (EG) of the workers (p = .271). Costs were mainly determined by guidance costs (F2F group) or purchase costs (EG group). Practitioner Summary: Participatory strategies aim to stimulate behavioural change of stakeholders to increase the use of ergonomics tools. Two guidance strategies - face-to-face or e-mail interventions - among construction companies were studied. Both guidance strategies led to an increase in the use of new ergonomics tools.

Guidance strategies for a participatory ergonomic intervention to increase the use of ergonomic measures of workers in construction companies: a study design of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: More than seven out of 10 Dutch construction workers describe their work as physically demanding. Ergonomic measures can be used to reduce these physically demanding work tasks. To increase the use of ergonomic measures, employers and workers have to get used to other working methods and to maintaining them. To facilitate this behavioural change, participatory ergonomics (PE) interventions could be useful. For this study a protocol of a PE intervention is adapted in such a way that the intervention can be performed by an ergonomics consultant through face-to-face contacts or email contacts. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the face-to-face guidance strategy and the e-guidance strategy on the primary outcome measure: use of ergonomic measures by individual construction workers, and on the secondary outcome measures: the work ability, physical functioning and limitations due to physical problems of individual workers. METHODS/DESIGN: The present study is a randomised intervention trial of six months in 12 companies to establish the effects of a PE intervention guided by four face-to-face contacts (N = 6) or guided by 13 email contacts (N = 6) on the primary and secondary outcome measures at baseline and after six months. Construction companies are randomly assigned to one of the guidance strategies with the help of a computer generated randomisation table. In addition, a process evaluation for both strategies will be performed to determine reach, dose delivered, dose received, precision, competence, satisfaction and behavioural change to find possible barriers and facilitators for both strategies. A cost-benefit analysis will be performed to establish the financial consequences of both strategies. The present study is in accordance with the CONSORT statement. DISCUSSION: The outcome of this study will help to 1) evaluate the effect of both guidance strategies, and 2) find barriers to and facilitators of both guidance strategies. When these strategies are effective, implementation within occupational health services can take place to guide construction companies (and others) with the implementation of ergonomic measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [corrected] Trailnumber: ISRCTN73075751, Date of registration: 30 July 2013.