Evaluating the categorisation of interventions in individual working practice aimed at preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders: An international experts consultation

IF 3.1 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Bert van de Wijdeven , Bart Visser , P. Paul F.M. Kuijer
{"title":"Evaluating the categorisation of interventions in individual working practice aimed at preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders: An international experts consultation","authors":"Bert van de Wijdeven ,&nbsp;Bart Visser ,&nbsp;P. Paul F.M. Kuijer","doi":"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In a previous scoping review, eight categories of interventions in individual work practice were defined. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the relevance and completeness of these eight categories and to increase the clarity of the nomenclature and definitions of each category. An international expert consultation has been carried out for this purpose. Thirty-eight experts from 13 countries participated. Data collection was conducted using a survey design comprising structured questions. Consensus was reached if 75% of the experts answered ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ on a 5-point Likert scale. For the topic ‘Relevance’, there was consensus for six of the eight categories (range 78%–86%), the exceptions were the categories: ‘Exercising’ (72%) and ‘Professional manners' (64%). With regard to the topic ‘Nomenclature’, consensus was reached for six categories and for the topic ‘Definition’ this was five categories. The present definitions have been improved based on the expert recommendations. With respect to the topic ‘Completeness’: although a limited number of suggestions were given, this did not lead to one or more categories being added to the existing eight categories. The final ‘Nomenclature’ for the categories is: ‘Variation’, ‘Professional behaviour’, ‘Motoric skills’, ‘Vocational working techniques’, ‘Physical workplace’, ‘Physical training’, ‘Assistive devices and tools’ and ‘Task content and task organisation’. This expert consultation has provided a solid basis for endorsing the categorisation of interventions in IWP and is an important step in building a framework to develop and evaluate interventions in IWP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55502,"journal":{"name":"Applied Ergonomics","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104338"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001157/pdfft?md5=85baa970c84b1cdf6b5a127e3c3f09a8&pid=1-s2.0-S0003687024001157-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001157","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a previous scoping review, eight categories of interventions in individual work practice were defined. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the relevance and completeness of these eight categories and to increase the clarity of the nomenclature and definitions of each category. An international expert consultation has been carried out for this purpose. Thirty-eight experts from 13 countries participated. Data collection was conducted using a survey design comprising structured questions. Consensus was reached if 75% of the experts answered ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’ on a 5-point Likert scale. For the topic ‘Relevance’, there was consensus for six of the eight categories (range 78%–86%), the exceptions were the categories: ‘Exercising’ (72%) and ‘Professional manners' (64%). With regard to the topic ‘Nomenclature’, consensus was reached for six categories and for the topic ‘Definition’ this was five categories. The present definitions have been improved based on the expert recommendations. With respect to the topic ‘Completeness’: although a limited number of suggestions were given, this did not lead to one or more categories being added to the existing eight categories. The final ‘Nomenclature’ for the categories is: ‘Variation’, ‘Professional behaviour’, ‘Motoric skills’, ‘Vocational working techniques’, ‘Physical workplace’, ‘Physical training’, ‘Assistive devices and tools’ and ‘Task content and task organisation’. This expert consultation has provided a solid basis for endorsing the categorisation of interventions in IWP and is an important step in building a framework to develop and evaluate interventions in IWP.

评估个人工作实践中旨在预防工作相关肌肉骨骼疾病的干预措施的分类:国际专家咨询会。
在之前的一次范围审查中,界定了个人工作实践中的八类干预措施。本研究的目的是评估这八个类别的相关性和完整性,并提高每个类别的术语和定义的清晰度。为此进行了一次国际专家磋商。来自 13 个国家的 38 名专家参加了磋商。数据收集采用了结构化问题的调查设计。如果 75% 的专家在 5 分制李克特量表中回答 "非常同意 "或 "同意",则达成共识。就 "相关性 "这一主题而言,8 个类别中有 6 个类别达成了共识(范围在 78%-86% 之间),但 "锻炼"(72%)和 "职业礼仪"(64%)这两个类别除外。在 "术语 "专题中,有 6 个类别达成了共识,在 "定义 "专题中,有 5 个类别达成了共识。目前的定义已根据专家建议进行了改进。关于 "完整性 "专题:虽然提出的建议数量有限,但并没有导致在现有的八个类别基础上增加一个或多个类别。最终的类别 "命名法 "为:"差异"、"职业行为"、"运动技能"、"职业工作技巧"、"物理工作场所"、"物理训练"、"辅助设备和工具 "以及 "任务内容和任务组织"。此次专家咨询为认可综合工作方案干预措施的分类提供了坚实的基础,也是建立开发和评估综合工作方案干预措施框架的重要一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Ergonomics
Applied Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
248
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Applied Ergonomics is aimed at ergonomists and all those interested in applying ergonomics/human factors in the design, planning and management of technical and social systems at work or leisure. Readership is truly international with subscribers in over 50 countries. Professionals for whom Applied Ergonomics is of interest include: ergonomists, designers, industrial engineers, health and safety specialists, systems engineers, design engineers, organizational psychologists, occupational health specialists and human-computer interaction specialists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信