Aim: This project aimed to understand how leaders' readiness to implement ergonomics changes affected the outcomes of implementing the APHIRM toolkit in a large retail organisation.
Methods: This study is a cluster quasi–randomized controlled trial, comparing implementation of the APHIRM toolkit with usual safety risk management practice. As is typical for workplaces, the intervention is facilitated by the organization’s safety team. We recruited 9 control and 9 intervention stores to the study through random selection of eligible stores. Quantitative data are collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Qualitative data to enable a process evaluation are collected over the duration of the study. Primary outcome measures are physical and psychosocial hazard severity scores. Secondary outcomes are self-rated pain and discomfort scores and action plan implementation measures. Managers’ progression through SoC is an additional outcome measure. The primary outcome measures (physical and psychosocial hazard severity ratings) will be analyzed by variance-weighted cluster-level ANCOVA. Ethics approval was granted by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC25088).
Results: While the study is still underway, there are already observed between group differences relating to their reported SoC and progress made with toolkit implementation. Results do not always correlate with frontline managers' or employees' SoC, suggesting that more focus may be needed on other actors when affecting change in large organisations.
Discussion/ implications: Implementing the APHIRM toolkit in a large organisation requires particular considerations and approaches, when compared with small and medium organisations. This presentation explores the differences, how the results of this study reveals those, and what this means for practitioners providing similar support in other large organisations.