Table 2 |
||
|
Perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation by the implementers |
||
|
Implementation level |
Factor |
Explanation(s) of factors |
|
|
||
|
Organisational |
Management commitment |
- (No) agreement or (no) support from management to implement prioritised ergonomic measure (b+f) |
|
|
||
|
Resources |
- (Lack of) financial resources (b+f) - (Lack of) personnel resources (b+f) |
|
|
|
||
|
Collaboration |
- Implementation process was delayed or accelerated by persons/structures/services within or outside the department (b+f) |
|
|
|
||
|
Co-worker |
Culture |
- Prioritised ergonomic measure did not fit in the department culture (b) |
|
|
||
|
Working group |
Composition |
- (No) leading person in the working group (b+f) - Members dropped out from or stayed in the working group (b+f) - Members had (no) time for implementation (b+f) - No decision maker in working group (b) - Efforts made by working group members (f) |
|
|
||
|
Ergonomic measure |
Relative Advantage |
- Prioritised ergonomic measure did (not) improve the situation when compared to the current situation (b+f) |
|
|
||
|
Difficulty |
- Prioritised ergonomic measure were easy/difficult to implement (b+f) |
|
|
|
||
|
Compatibility |
- Prioritised ergonomic measure did not fit the workplace (b) |
|
|
|
||
|
Complexity |
- Prioritised ergonomic measure was not direct practicable for all workers (b) |
|
|
|
||
|
Approved |
- The plans for implementing the prioritised ergonomic measure were already made and approved before the working group meeting took place (f) |
|
|
|
||
|
b + f: explanation could be both a barrier and a facilitator b: explanation of a barrier f: explanation of a facilitator |
||
|
Driessen et al. Implementation Science 2010 5:64 doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-64 |
||
