The process evaluation of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of the recruitment and allocation of the construction companies (reused from Visser 2015).

Table 1. Overview of the process evaluation components dose delivered, dose received, precision and consultant competence on company level (numbers of employees). In addition, the dose delivered and received by individual construction workers is given.

Process evaluation component	Face-to-face guidance strategy							E-guidance strategy
	1 (n = 21)	2^** (n = 23)	3^* (n = 35)	4 (n = 61)	5^* (n = 15)	6 (n = 17)	Overall	7^* (n = 51)	8 (n = 20)	9 (n = 3)	10 (n = 20)	11 (n = 9)	12 (n = 2)	Overall
Dose delivered
All PI	31/31	11/31	11/31	21/31	11/31	31/31		9/31	31/31	9/31	9/31	9/31	11/31
%	100	35	35	68	35	100	62	29	100	29	29	29	35	42
Essential PI	19/19	7/19	7/19	13/19	7/19	19/19		6/19	19/19	6/19	6/19	6/19	7/19
%	100	37	37	68	37	100	63	32	100	32	32	32	37	44
Dose received
All PI	26/31	8/31	1/31	8/31	1/31	27/31		2/31	25/31	2/31	2/31	4/31	4/31
%	84	26	3	26	3	87	38	6	81	6	6	13	13	21
Essential PI	19/19	7/19	0/19	6/19	0/19	16/19		0/19	18/19	0/19	0/19	0/19	0/19
%	100	37	0	32	0	84	42	0	95	0	0	0	0	16
Steps fulfilled	6/6	0/6	0/6	0/6	0/6	3/6		0/6	5/6	0/6	0/6	0/6	0/6
Dose delivered to workers
Familiar with goal of steering committee	21/21	23/23		1/61	15/15	17/17	77/137	51/51	20/20	3/3	20/20	9/9	2/2	105/105
%	100	100		2	100	100	56	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Information delivered about health risks	3/21	5/23		1/61	0/15	17/17	26/137	0/51	20/20	0/3	3/20	4/9	1/2	28/105
%	14	22		2	0	100	19	0	100	0	15	44	50	27
Information delivered about tools/equipment	3/21	0/23		1/61	0/15	17/17	21/137	4/51	20/20	0/3	0/20	9/9	2/2	35/105
%	14	0		2	0	100	15	8	100	0	0	100	100	33
Involved in choice of tools/equipment	3/21	0/23		1/61	0/15	2/17	6/137	0/51	3/20	0/3	0/20	0/9	1/2	4/105
%	14	0		2	0	12	4	0	15	0	0	0	50	4
Got training/instruction of tools/equipment	2/21	0/23		0/61	0/15	5/17	7/137	0/51	4/20	0/3	0/20	3/9	0/2	7/105
%	10	0		0	0	29	5	0	20	0	0	33	0	7
Tested tool/equipment in daily practice	6/21	0/23		0/61	0/15	4/17	10/137	0/51	4/20	0/3	0/20	6/9	2/2	12/105
%	29	0		0	0	24	7	0	40	0	0	67	100	11
All delivered	2/21	0/23		0/61	0/15	2/17	4/137	0/51	2/20	0/3	0/20	0/9	0/2	2/105
%	10	0		0	0	12	3	0	10	0	0	0	0	2
Dose received by workers
Information about the intervention	3/12	6/14		7/13		8/8	24/47		10/11	2/2	7/11	4/4	2/2	25/30
%	25	43		54		100	51		91	100	64	100	100	83
Information about health risks	6/13	4/14		6/12		7/8	23/47		7/10	0/2	3/11	1/4	1/2	12/29
%	46	29		50		88	49		70	0	27	25	50	41
Information about tools/equipment	5/13	0/14		7/13		8/8	20/48		11/12	0/2	0/11	4/4	2/2	17/31
%	38	0		54		100	42		92	0	0	100	100	55
Read information	6/13	0/14		7/13		8/8	21/48		9/12	0/2	0/11	4/4	1/2	14/31
%	46	0		54		100	44		75	0	0	100	50	45
Involved in choice of tools/equipment	4/13	0/14		1/11		4/8	9/46		3/12	0/2	0/11	0/4	1/2	4/31
%	31	0		9		50	20		25	0	0	0	50	13
Got training/instruction	3/12	0/14		6/13		3/8	12/47		6/12	0/2	0/11	2/4	0/2	8/31
%	25	0		46		38	26		50	0	0	50	0	26
Tested tool/equipment in daily practice	6/13	0/14		6/13		7/8	19/48		7/12	0/2	0/11	4/4	2/2	13/31
%	46	0		46		88	40		58	0	0	100	100	42
All received	2/12	0/14		0/11		2/17	4/45		2/20	0/3	0/20	0/9	0/2	2/29
%	17	0		0		12	9		10	0	0	0	0	7
Precision
Website	+					+			+			+	+
Code of practice	+					–			–			+	+
Consultant competence
Preparation assignments	+			+		+	+		+	+	+	+	+	+
Objectives of meetings	+			+		+	+		+	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	+	+
Feedback form for consultant after meetings	+			+		+	+		+	+	+	+	+	+
Answered questions about protocol	+			n.a.		n.a.	?		+	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	?
Help with problems	+			–		+	+/–		n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	?

Notes: n.a.: not applicable.

+: item was sufficient (for precision: the tool was mentioned on the website or code of practice; for consultant competence: the contact person found the items clearly expressed by the consultant).

–: item was not sufficient.

?: no statement can be made about the item.

^* Companies went bankrupt or dropped out before the intervention was started

^** Change of management during the intervention.

Table 2. Overview of the numbers of members of the steering committee and the construction workers satisfied with aspects of the intervention.

Process evaluation component		Face-to-face guidance strategy							E-guidance strategy
		1	2^**	3^*	4	5^*	6	Overall	7^*	8	9	10	11	12	Overall
Satisfaction
Members of steering committee
Additional value		2/2	1/1		0/3		3/3	6/9		6/6	0/1	0/1	0/1	1/2	7/11
Involvement employees with choice of ergonomic tool		1/2	0/1		1/3		3/3	5/9		6/6	0/1	1/1	0/1	0/2	7/11
Involvement employees with implementation		2/2	0/1		0/3		3/3	5/9		6/6	0/1	1/1	0/1	0/2	7/11
Duration of guidance (6 months)		2/2	1/1		2/3		2/3	7/9		5/6	0/1	0/1	0/1	1/2	6/11
Meetings	1	2/2	n.a.		1/3		3/3	6/8		6/6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	6/6
	2	2/2	n.a.		n.a.		3/3	5/5		5/6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	5/6
	3	2/2	n.a.		n.a.		3/3	5/5		6/6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	6/6
	4	2/2	n.a.		n.a.		3/3	5/5		6/6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	6/6
Duration of meeting of the steering committee (1 to 2 h)		1/2	n.a.		2/3		3/3	6/8		4/6	0/1	0/1	0/1	0/2	4/11
Additional value of ergonomics consultant		1/2	0/1		0/3		2/3	3/9		1/6	0/1	0/1	0/1	1/2	2/11
Workers
Information on the intervention		3/12	5/14		5/13		7/8	20/47		8/10	0/2	4/11	4/4	2/2	18/29
%		25	36		38		88	43		80	0	36	100	100	62
Possibility to choose an ergonomic tool		5/12	0/14		4/13		6/8	15/47		8/11	0/2	0/11	0/4	1/2	9/30
%		42	0		31		75	32		73	0	0	0	50	30
Training/instruction session		7/12	0/14		5/12		3/8	15/46		7/11	0/2	0/11	0/4	0/2	7/30
%		58	0		42		38	33		64	0	0	0	0	22
Duration of training/instruction session		5/12	0/14		5/13		3/8	13/47		7/11	0/2	0/11	0/4	0/2	7/30
%		42	0		38		38	28		64	0	0	0	0	23
Possibility to test in daily practice		6/12	0/14		8/13		7/8	21/47		9/10	0/2	0/11	4/4	2/2	15/29
%		50	0		62		88	45		90	0	0	100	100	52

Note: n.a.: not applicable.

^* Companies went bankrupt or dropped out before the intervention was started

^** Change of management during the intervention.

Table 3. Overview of the percentage of workers scoring good at the six topics of behavioural change at baseline (T0) and follow-up after six months (T1) for the face-to-face guidance strategy and the e-guidance strategy.

Measurement moment		Face-to-face guidance strategy							E-guidance strategy							p-Value^***
		1 (n = 21)	2^** (n = 23)	3^* (n = 35)	4 (n = 61)	5^* (n = 15)	6 (n = 17)	Overall	7^* (n = 51)	8 (n = 20)	9 (n = 3)	10 (n = 20)	11 (n = 9)	12 (n = 2)	Overall
Behavioural change
Knowledge	T0	13/18	15/16		18/28		3/9			5/20	3/3	11/13	1/4	1/2		0.108
		72%	94%		64%		33%	69%		25%	100%	85%	25%	50%	50%
	T1	11/14	11/12		10/13		8/9			1/12	2/2	8/11	3/4	1/2
		79%	92%		77%		89%	83%		8%	100%	73%	75%	50%	48%
Attitude	T0	14/18	9/16		12/28		6/9			12/20	3/3	8/13	1/3	1/2		0.113
		78%	56%		43%		67%	58%		60%	100%	62%	33%	50%	61%
	T1	11/14	7/12		4/12		5/9			6/11	2/2	9/11	2/4	1/2
		79%	58%		33%		56%	57%		55%	100%	82%	50%	50%	67%
Motivation	T0	16/17	16/16		28/28		8/9			19/19	3/3	13/13	3/4	2/2		–
		94%	100%		100%		89%	97%		100%	100%	100%	75%	100%	98%
	T1	14/14	12/12		13/13		9/9			12/12	2/2	11/11	4/4	2/2
		100%	100%		100%		100%	100%		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Ability to use
Tools for transportation	T0	8/18	14/16		23/27		8/9			18/20	2/3	13/13	4/4	2/2		0.382
		44%	88%		85%		89%	76%		90%	67%	100%	100%	100%	93%
	T1	10/14	10/12		8/13		9/9			12/12	1/2	11/11	4/4	2/2
		71%	83%		62%		100%	77%		100%	50%	100%	100%	100%	97%
Tools for raising equipment or materials	T0	13/18	13/16		23/27					15/20	3/3	13/13				0.000
		72%	81%		85%		n.a.	80%		75%	100%	100%	n.a.	n.a.	86%
	T1	9/13	9/12		10/12					12/12	2/2	11/11
		69%	75%		83%		n.a.	76%		100%	100%	100%	n.a.	n.a.	100%
Tools to adjust working height	T0	18/18	12/15		26/27		7/9			19/20	3/3	10/13	3/4	1/2		0.147
		100%	80%		96%		78%	91%		95%	100%	77%	75%	50%	86%
	T1	14/14	10/12		12/12		5/9			12/12	2/2	9/11	4/4	2/2
		100%	83%		100%		56%	87%		100%	100%	82%	100%	100%	94%
Ergonomic hand tools	T0	16/18	14/16		20/27		9/9			12/20	3/3	13/13	4/4	2/2		0.726
		89%	88%		74%		100%	84%		60%	100%	100%	100%	100%	81%
	T1	12/13	10/12		10/12		9/9			10/12	2/2	11/11	4/4	2/2
		92%	83%		83%		100%	89%		83%	100%	100%	100%	100%	94%
Availability of
Tools for transportation	T0	10/18	16/16		23/18		8/9			20/20	3/3	13/13	4/4	2/2		0.641
		56%	100%		82%		89%	80%		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
	T1	9/14	12/12		9/12		8/9			12/12	2/2	11/11	4/4	2/2
		64%	100%		75%		89%	81%		100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Tools for raising equipment or materials	T0	6/18	10/16		21/28					19/20	2/3	13/13				0.000
		33%	63%		75%		n.a.	60%		95%	67%	100%	n.a.	n.a.	94%
	T1	7/14	9/12		8/12					11/12	1/2	11/11
		50%	75%		67%		n.a.	63%		92%	50%	100%	n.a.	n.a.	92%
Tools to adjust working height	T0	18/18	8/16		28/28		6/9			20/20	3/3	3/13	2/4	2/2		0.018
		100%	50%		100%		67%	85%		100%	100%	23%	50%	100%	71%
	T1	14/14	6/12		11/12		4/9			12/12	2/2	7/11	4/4	2/2
		100%	50%		92%		44%	74%		100%	100%	64%	100%	100%	87%
Ergonomic hand tools	T0	14/18	10/16		16/28		9/9			11/20	3/3	13/13	4/4	2/2		0.000
		78%	63%		57%		100%	69%		55%	100%	100%	100%	100%	79%
	T1	9/13	7/12		9/12		8/9			11/12	2/2	11/11	4/4	2/2
		69%	58%		75%		89%	72%		92%	100%	100%	100%	100%	97%
Rules or procedures	T0	9/17	6/16		22/28		8/9			17/19	2/3	10/13	2/4	0/2		0.280
		53%	38%		79%		89%	64%		89%	67%	77%	50%	0%	76%
	T1	8/14	3/12		9/13		8/9			10/12	2/2	9/11	2/4	0/2
		57%	25%		69%		89%	58%		83%	100%	82%	50%	0%	74%
Culture	T0	12/18	13/16		19/28		8/9			12/20	2/2	9/13	3/4	2/2		–
		67%	81%		68%		89%	73%		60%	100%	69%	75%	100%	68%
	T1	9/13	11/12		8/11		7/9			10/12	2/2	11/11	4/4	2/2
		69%	92%		73%		78%	78%		83%	100%	100%	100%	100%	94%

Notes: For each behavioural change component, having a percentage of 75% of the workers was rated as sufficient. For ability to use and availability, the category in which an ergonomic tool was implemented was marked bold and italic.

–: no stable testing possible.

^* Companies went bankrupt or dropped out before the intervention was started

^** Change of management during the intervention

^*** p-Value represents the interaction (guidance strategy (face-to-face or e-guidance) × time (T0 and T1)) of the Generalized Linear Mixed Models.

Table

Performance indicator (PI)		Explanation
Step 1	Preparation
Steering committee
P1	Involvement of Company chairman	Company is responsible to perform the intervention
P2	Financial budget by chairman	Control and facilitation of investments
P3	Involvement of construction workers	Knowledge of hindrances/end user
P4	Involvement of construction workers’ assistant(s)	Knowledge of hindrances/end user
P5	Involvement of work preparation	Early involvement of facilitator
P6	Involvement of worksite managers/foreman	Commitment middle management
P7	Involvement of ergonomist/consultant	Experiences of guidance of participatory processes
P8	No change of steering group	Ensure continuity during the intervention
Objectives
P9	Subscribed objectives	Clarity and intention to implement tools or equipment
Planning
P10	Meetings (≥3) of steering committee	Ensure continuity during the intervention
P11	Meeting on problems	Increase knowledge of stakeholders
P12	Meeting on solutions	Awareness and understanding of available tools or equipment by stakeholders
P13	Meeting after first experience	Sharing experiences of stakeholders after first experiences
P14	Within 6 months	More change of success when intervention is performed within this time
Step 2	Information strategies
P15	Written information to workers	Knowledge of problems and solutions supports implementation
P16	Oral information to workers via meetings	Knowledge of problems and solutions supports implementation
P17	Visual information to workers	Knowledge of problems and solutions supports implementation
Step 3	Selection of measures
P18	Tailored information on tools or equipment	Detailed knowledge of measures to workers
P19	Meeting on (dis)advantages	Anticipation on hindrances when using tool or equipment
P20	Selection tools or equipment by workers	Commitment of the workers
Step 4	Ability to use
P21	Instruction and training	Knowledge and skills to use tool or equipment
P22	Testing without financial risks	Stimulate experience with tool or equipment for workers
P23	Intervention on hindrances	Counteract hindrances on implementation found during testing
P24	Cost-benefit analysis	Clarity about financial consequences when purchasing the tool or equipment
Step 5	Experiences on measures
P25	Testing measures	Actual experience of tool or equipment in daily work
P26	Adaptations on a test basis	Consideration to stakeholders’ experiences
Step 6	Implementation
P27	Feedback on test results	Increase commitment by interaction within steering committee
P28	Announcement of deployment	Communication to the workers increases commitment
P29	Agreements about implementation	Support logistics and implementation
P30	Information middle management	Incorporation policy to use tool or equipment in organisation
P31	Feedback on use of tools or equipment	Increase of knowledge and commitment

Visser, S. 2015. The Process Evaluation of a Randomised Trial for Implementing Two Guidance Strategies of a Participatory Ergonomics Intervention on the Use of Ergonomic Measures among Construction Workers – Chapter 4.2. “Ergonomic Measures in Construction Work: Enhancing Evidence-Based Implementation.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar