Schools and kindergartens as shared workplaces: An analysis of the work ability management challenges of the meal and cleaning service employees

Participatory ergonomics: What works for whom and why? A realist review

Participatory workplace interventions to improve workforce musculoskeletal health are infrequently analysed regarding why they work, for whom or under what circumstances. This review sought to identify intervention strategies which achieved genuine worker participation. In total, 3388 articles on participatory ergonomic (PE) interventions were screened; 23 were suitable to analyse within a realist framework identifying contexts, mechanisms of change, and outcomes. The interventions which succeeded in achieving worker participation were characterised by one or more of these contexts: workers' needs as a core starting point; a positive implementation climate; clear distribution of roles and responsibilities; allocation of sufficient resources; and managerial commitment to and involvement in occupational safety and health. Interventions that were organised and delivered in this way generated relevance, meaning, confidence, ownership and trust for the workers in an interrelated and multi-directional manner. With such information, PE interventions may be carried out more effectively and sustainably in the future.Practitioner summary: This review focuses on the question: which mechanisms support genuine worker participation, in what context and with which necessary resources, to reduce musculoskeletal disorders. Results emphasise the importance of starting with workers' needs, making the implementation climate egalitarian, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all involved, and providing sufficient resources.Abbreviations: PE: participatory ergonomic(s); WMSD: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders; EU: European Union; MSD: Muskuloskeletal disorders; OSH: Occupational health and safety; C: context; M: mechanism; O: outcome; CMOCs: CMO configurations; NPT: Normalization process theory; OECD: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: EU-OSHA: European Occupational Safety and Health Agency.

Occupational safety and health and temporary agency work in multiemployer restaurants

BACKGROUND

Current occupational safety and health (OSH) literature calls for sociotechnical, system-level approaches that increase understanding of the underlying reasons for insufficient OSH performance in non-standard employment that is associated with lower labour and social security protection when compared with traditional forms of work.

OBJECTIVE

This study focused on temporary agency work (TAW) which is a central form of nonstandard employment. The objective was to explore OSH issues in temporary agency work (TAW) in small and medium -sized multiemployer restaurants in Finland and discuss the issues from the perspectives of the agency worker, user company and agency.

METHODS

A directed content analysis method was used to examine the data obtained from semi-structured interviews (n = 20) with agency workers, restaurant managers and experts representing the temporary work agencies, a pension insurer, and a labour union. The balanced work system theory was used as a framework for this qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

A variety of OSH risks and hazards in TAW were identified. In addition, the complexity of OSH management was highlighted in this triangular employment relationship between the agency worker, the user company, and the agency.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals problems related to OSH in TAW. Restaurants are entities separate from agencies, so establishing and adhering to a common process of OSH management is not simple.

Co-operation in the prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: A cross-sectional study among occupational health professionals in Finland

BACKGROUND: Occupational health service (OHS) providers and their client organizations are obligated to collaborate in promoting health and work ability. Little is known how this multiprofessional co-operation is implemented in relation to the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the working practices of co-operation among OHS professionals, and between the OHSs and workplaces. METHODS: In 2015 a web-based questionnaire was sent to 3900 OHS professionals in Finland. A total of 589 responded: 106 physicians, 322 nurses, 134 physiotherapists and 27 psychologists. RESULTS: The co-operation within OHS personnel was regarded to strengthen the processes to promote work ability of workers with MSD. Despite the positive expectations of co-operation, there is a problem of having enough time to put good ideas into practice. Four main possibilities to develop co-operation were identified: creating proactive working models with defined roles; increasing awareness of importance of early intervention models; implementing the principles of good OH practice; and adopting the knowledge of the latest information to promote work ability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its recognized importance, co-operation both with OHS colleagues and with the workplaces was not always optimal. There is a need for defined roles and common proactive working models between each stakeholder for more effective co-operation.