No abstract

Researchers should engage directly with organisations in ergonomics projects so that they can better understand the challenges and needs of practitioners who are trying to apply available scientific knowledge in their own unique context. Such 'Action Research' could help develop theory and approaches useful to improve mobilisation and application of ergonomics knowledge in organisations.

No abstract

Few evaluation tools are available to assess knowledge-transfer and exchange interventions. The objective of this paper is to develop and demonstrate a theory-based knowledge-transfer and exchange method of evaluation (KEME) that synthesizes 3 theoretical frameworks: the promoting action on research implementation of health services (PARiHS) model, the transtheoretical model of change, and a model of knowledge use. It proposes a new term, keme, to mean a unit of evidence-based transferable knowledge. The usefulness of the evaluation method is demonstrated with 4 occupational health and safety knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) implementation case studies that are based upon the analysis of over 50 pre-existing interviews. The usefulness of the evaluation model has enabled us to better understand stakeholder feedback, frame our interpretation, and perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the knowledge use outcomes of our KTE efforts.

This article investigates management commitment to workplace health and safety through an analysis of the implementation of participatory ergonomic (PE) interventions in three worksites. The PE programs were established to address the burden of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Drawing upon interview and observational data, the analysis examines the evolution of managerial support for PE programs over time and in the context of pressures internal and external to the worksites. Ergonomic Change Teams in all three sites experienced problems establishing authority to act as change agents and in accessing employee time to carry out their activities. Resolution of these problems was heavily contingent on the commitment of senior management, and the efforts of individual management personnel to intervene in support of the PE program. Our findings highlight that “management” is not a monolithic entity and managerial structures are often marked by divisions in priorities, including health and safety.