Ann Marie Dale1, Lisa Jaegers2, Laura Welch3, Ellen Barnidge4, Nancy Weaver4, Bradley A Evanoff1. 1. Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 2. Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Saint Louis University Doisy College of Health Sciences, St Louis, Missouri. 3. CPWR-Center for Construction Research and Training, Silver Spring, Maryland. 4. Department of Behavioral Science and Health Education, Saint Louis University College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of musculoskeletal disorders in construction remain high. Few studies have described barriers and facilitators to the use of available ergonomic solutions. This paper describes these barriers and facilitators and their relationship to the level of adoption. METHODS: Three analysts rated 16 proposed ergonomic solutions from a participatory ergonomics study and assessed the level of adoption, six adoption characteristics, and identified the category of adoption from a theoretical model. RESULTS: Twelve solutions were always or intermittently used and were rated positively for characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility with existing work processes and trialability. Locus of control (worker vs. contractor) was not related to adoption. Simple solutions faced fewer barriers to adoption than those rated as complex. CONCLUSIONS: Specific adoption characteristics can help predict the use of new ergonomic solutions in construction. Adoption of complex solutions must involve multiple stakeholders, more time, and shifts in culture or work systems. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:295-305, 2017.
BACKGROUND: Rates of musculoskeletal disorders in construction remain high. Few studies have described barriers and facilitators to the use of available ergonomic solutions. This paper describes these barriers and facilitators and their relationship to the level of adoption. METHODS: Three analysts rated 16 proposed ergonomic solutions from a participatory ergonomics study and assessed the level of adoption, six adoption characteristics, and identified the category of adoption from a theoretical model. RESULTS: Twelve solutions were always or intermittently used and were rated positively for characteristics of relative advantage, compatibility with existing work processes and trialability. Locus of control (worker vs. contractor) was not related to adoption. Simple solutions faced fewer barriers to adoption than those rated as complex. CONCLUSIONS: Specific adoption characteristics can help predict the use of new ergonomic solutions in construction. Adoption of complex solutions must involve multiple stakeholders, more time, and shifts in culture or work systems. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:295-305, 2017.
Authors: Desre M Kramer; Philip L Bigelow; Niki Carlan; Richard P Wells; Enzo Garritano; Peter Vi; Marek Plawinski Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Hester J Lipscomb; Ashley L Schoenfisch; Wilfrid Cameron; Kristen L Kucera; Darrin Adams; Barbara A Silverstein Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Lisa Jaegers; Laura Welch; Bethany T Gardner; Bryan Buchholz; Nancy Weaver; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Kim Miller; Bethany T Gardner; Ching-Ting Hwang; Bradley Evanoff; Laura Welch Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Daniel Ryan; Laura Welch; Margaret A Olsen; Bryan Buchholz; Bradley Evanoff Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Susan E Peters; Michael P Grant; Justin Rodgers; Justin Manjourides; Cassandra A Okechukwu; Jack T Dennerlein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.390