Participatory ergonomics: What works for whom and why? A realist review.

Participatory workplace interventions to improve workforce musculoskeletal health are infrequently analysed regarding why they work, for whom or under what circumstances. This review sought to identify intervention strategies which achieved genuine worker participation. In total, 3388 articles on participatory ergonomic (PE) interventions were screened; 23 were suitable to analyse within a realist framework identifying contexts, mechanisms of change, and outcomes. The interventions which succeeded in achieving worker participation were characterised by one or more of these contexts: workers' needs as a core starting point; a positive implementation climate; clear distribution of roles and responsibilities; allocation of sufficient resources; and managerial commitment to and involvement in occupational safety and health. Interventions that were organised and delivered in this way generated relevance, meaning, confidence, ownership and trust for the workers in an interrelated and multi-directional manner. With such information, PE interventions may be carried out more effectively and sustainably in the future.Practitioner summary: This review focuses on the question: which mechanisms support genuine worker participation, in what context and with which necessary resources, to reduce musculoskeletal disorders. Results emphasise the importance of starting with workers' needs, making the implementation climate egalitarian, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all involved, and providing sufficient resources.Abbreviations: PE: participatory ergonomic(s); WMSD: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders; EU: European Union; MSD: Muskuloskeletal disorders; OSH: Occupational health and safety; C: context; M: mechanism; O: outcome; CMOCs: CMO configurations; NPT: Normalization process theory; OECD: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: EU-OSHA: European Occupational Safety and Health Agency.

The GLA:D BACK self-management adherence and competence checklist (SMAC Checklist)-Development, content validity and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: To unpack the complexity and impact of self-management interventions targeting musculoskeletal health conditions, we need to learn more about treatment delivery in clinical settings. Fidelity evaluation can illuminate how complex treatments are delivered and help understand the elements that lead to the effect. The objective of this study was to develop a checklist for the evaluation of the clinicians' delivery of structured patient education and exercise intervention for people with persistent back pain, the GLA:D Back intervention. The intent was to provide a checklist adaptable for the general delivery of self-management interventions for musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We derived items for the treatment delivery fidelity checklist from behaviour change techniques and theory about communication style. We applied a three-step developmental process covering developing a preliminary fidelity intervention framework, validating checklist content and piloting and refining the checklist. RESULTS: We developed the adaptable fidelity checklist, The GLA:D BACK Self-management Adherence and Competence Checklist (SMAC Checklist). Evaluation of clinical practice using the checklist was feasible and acceptable by clinicians. Preliminary results indicate satisfactory observer agreement during pilot testing of the checklist. CONCLUSION: The GLA:D BACK Self-management Adherence and Competence Checklist is a fidelity measurement tool for the assessment of the delivery of a self-management supportive intervention for people with persistent back pain. The intention is that it can be useful as an adaptable tool for use across self-management interventions for musculoskeletal pain.