Risk assessments of hand-intensive and repetitive work are commonly done using observational methods, and it is important that the methods are reliable and valid. However, comparisons of the reliability and validity of methods are hampered by differences in studies, e.g., regarding the background and competence of the observers, the complexity of the observed work tasks and the statistical methodology. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate six risk assessment methods, concerning inter- and intra-observer reliability and concurrent validity, using the same methodological design and statistical parameters in the analyses. Twelve experienced ergonomists were recruited to perform risk assessments of ten video-recorded work tasks twice, and consensus assessments for the concurrent validity were carried out by three experts. All methods’ total-risk linearly weighted kappa values for inter-observer reliability (when all tasks were set to the same duration) were lower than 0.5 (0.15–0.45). Moreover, the concurrent validity values were in the same range with regards to total-risk linearly weighted kappa (0.31–0.54). Although these levels are often considered as being fair to substantial, they denote agreements lower than 50% when the expected agreement by chance has been compensated for. Hence, the risk of misclassification is substantial. The intra-observer reliability was only somewhat higher (0.16–0.58). Regarding the methods ART (Assessment of repetitive tasks of the upper limbs) and HARM (Hand Arm Risk Assessment Method), it is worth noting that the work task duration has a high impact in the risk level calculation, which needs to be taken into account in studies of reliability. This study indicates that when experienced ergonomists use systematic methods, the reliability is low. As seen in other studies, especially assessments of hand/wrist postures were difficult to rate. In light of these results, complementing observational risk assessments with technical methods should be considered, especially when evaluating the effects of ergonomic interventions.

The digitalization of the transport, logistics, and home care industries has significantly transformed both the work environment and the required job competencies Digital skills have become essential to managing the increased ICT and administrative demands Digitalization can reduce employee autonomy and flexibility due to increased traceability and intensified scheduling Digitalization, including surveillance, diminishes opportunities for micro-breaks in the included industries Effective managerial strategies involve transparent utilization of systems, dedicated training and support, and ensuring high usability

The objective of this study protocol is to describe the development of a process model for occupational health surveillance for workers exposed to hand-intensive work (the HIW-model), and to describe the studies that will explore the model. The studies are designed to: (1) explore stakeholders’ experiences of the model, and (2) explore if, and how, the model affects actions for reduction of exposure to hand-intensive work. The study protocol presents a research project that is described as two studies. The first study will explore company representatives’ and ergonomists’ experiences of the execution of the HIW-model and its various components concerning feasibility and values. Semi-structured interviews will constitute the data source. The second study will explore whether the execution of the HIW-model leads to work environmental changes, such as actions for reduction of exposure to hand-intensive work, and whether these potential actions are based on the ergonomist’s feedback of the exposure assessment and the medical health checks. A mixed method approach will be applied, in which the data sources will be comprised of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and documents. The project is expected to generate knowledge regarding the values of the HIW-model. The project is anticipated to shed light on factors that facilitate or impede execution of the model from the different stakeholders’ perspectives; the employer’s as having the legal responsibility for the work environment, and the occupational health service consultants’, being the work environment experts supporting the employers.

Exposure assessment seldom precedes the medical health checks in occupational health surveillance. In order to emphasize the interconnection between exposure assessment and medical health checks, a process model was developed. The process model aimed to guide employers and Occupational Health Service providers through the execution of occupational health surveillance. The objective of this qualitative study is to explore company representatives’ experiences of the process model, in terms of feasibility and values, and to identify factors that facilitate or impede the process. Thirty-three company representatives from ten companies were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using content analysis. The company representatives experienced that the model contributed to increased risk awareness and understanding of the exposure effects on workers’ health. They valued the exposure assessments performed by an ergonomics expert, which led to the discovery of previously unidentified risks. The feasibility was facilitated by: a joint start-up meeting in which the process was planned, clear communication between the involved parties, and clarity regarding the process ownership. The findings reveal that a guiding process model is valuable for the execution of occupational health surveillance. However, the model should not only define the components included; a practical guide concerning how the process can be executed is also needed.

This mixed method study aimed to describe what risk-reducing actions were proposed by ergonomists after the execution of a guided process for occupational health surveillance for workers exposed to hand-intensive work in ten companies. Another aim was to describe the exposed workers' proposals for risk-reducing actions, including their perceptions of potential changes in the self-assessed exposure levels and work-related pain. Several actions, targeting organizational, technical, and/or individual measures were proposed. Proposals from the ergonomists more often targeted the personal measures, whereas the workers' proposals targeted technology or organizational changes. Six companies implemented at least one of the action proposals. These action proposals were not related to evaluation metrics, nor were they evaluated. This study indicates that both ergonomists and companies need guidance on how to improve to work in a participatory process for the implementation and evaluation of risk-reducing actions, e.g., by how to better include workers' experiences.

Objective. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how ergonomists experienced an e-learning concept as a tool for knowledge translation; furthermore, to explore what, if any, impact the knowledge translation had regarding the ergonomists’ work with risk assessments. Methods. Twelve Swedish ergonomists employed in the occupational health service (OHS) participated in a research project, which included an e-learning program in risk assessment training. Focus group interviews and individual interviews were used for data collection. Results. The ergonomists appreciated the e-learning concept, e.g., its flexibility enabled them to decide when and where to practice. The concept was considered feasible within the context of the OHS. The ergonomists experienced an increased knowledge of different observation-based risk assessment tools, which expanded their professional toolboxes. Additionally, they began to reflect more regarding the reliability of risk assessment tools and how to enhance quality in risk assessment assignments. Conclusion. This study showed that e-learning may comprise an efficient knowledge translation for improved risk assessments in the OHS. The program contributed to changes in ergonomists’ risk assessment procedures, e.g., in the selection of tools, increasing the number of observers, employing a participatory approach and more often actively involving stakeholders during the risk assessment process.