ArticlePloS one2018
Implementation of an ergonomics intervention in a Swedish flight baggage handling company-A process evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a process evaluation of the implementation of an ergonomics training program aimed at increasing the use of loading assist devices in flight baggage handling.
methodsFeasibility related to the process items recruitment, reach, context, dose delivered (training time and content); dose received (participants' engagement); satisfaction with training; intermediate outcomes (skills, confidence and behaviors); and barriers and facilitators of the training intervention were assessed by qualitative and quantitative methods.
resultsImplementation proved successful regarding dose delivered, dose received and satisfaction. Confidence among participants in the training program in using and talking about devices, observed use of devices among colleagues, and internal feedback on work behavior increased significantly (p<0.01). Main facilitators were self-efficacy, motivation, and perceived utility of training among the trainees. Barriers included lack of peer support, opportunities to observe and practice behaviors, and follow-up activities; as well as staff reduction and job insecurity.
conclusionsIn identifying important barriers and facilitators for a successful outcome, this study can help supporting the effectiveness of future interventions. Our results suggest that barriers caused by organizational changes may likely be alleviated by recruiting motivated trainees and securing strong organizational support for the implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.