Running Head: PLAIN LANGUAGE PROJECT

Plain Language Project

Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellness

Humber College, North Campus

Knowledge Translation - BHSW 4503 - 0NA

Julian Aiken

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Plain Language Project 1

Target Audience
The target audience is shopping mall employers wanting to create safer and more comfortable
working environments for employees. They lack a background in health or workplace safety.
They have an interest in identifying ergonomic risks and learning how to minimize them to
promote employee productivity, motivation and quality service.

Why was this study done?

Shopping mall employees face a range of health issues, mainly due to working in closed spaces,
artificial lighting, constant noise, and long hours. This research examines the ergonomic risks
that shopping mall employees perceive. Understanding ergonomics will aid in creating better
workplaces and make employees more productive at work.

How was the study done?

The study looked at how social and demographic factors affect views on workplace ergonomics.
Researchers created a questionnaire and used the "Workplace Ergonomics Scale". The sample
was a selection of 222 workers from 3 shopping centers in Erzurum, Turkey, working between
May 1 and July 1, 2022.
The questionnaire covered employee The Workplace Ergonomics Scale covered 6 dimensions:
characteristics such as: 1) Occupational Health and Safety
● gender & age 2) Environmental Conditions
● education level 3) Psychological Elements
● marital status 4) Employee Safety
● working position 5) Workplace Social Environment
● had chronic disease 6) Working Environment

A significance level of p<0.05 for results means there is less than 5% chance that it occurred by
random chance alone.

What did the researchers find and what were the implications?
Most employees were high school graduates, of which 47.3% were sales consultants.
44.6% were aged between 26 and 32, 51.4% are women, and 70.7% were single status.
Health-wise, 93.7% did not have a chronic disease and 77.9% did not have health complaints.

Below are the major study results:

Total Mean Score of Workplace Ergonomics: Shopping center employees averaged a score
of 113.64 for workplace ergonomics. This score suggests a generally low perception of
ergonomic risks.
Sub-dimensions of Workplace Ergonomics Scale: Employees felt the most risk in their
Workplace Social Environment and Working Environment, but reported the lowest risk in
Occupational Health & Safety. This suggests that employees perceive social and
environmental factors as more concerning than physical safety.
Gender & Marital Status: While no big difference was found between genders, married
employees rated Workplace Social Environment higher than single employees. This score
means that married shopping employees perceive lower risks in their social environment to
spend their break.
Plain Language Project 2

Education Level: Employees with graduate education rated environmental conditions and
psychological factors lower. This finding suggests that they see their work environment as
riskier.
Position at Work: Security guards rated psychological factors lower than sales consultants.
This suggests that they perceive higher psychological and ergonomic risks.
Nature of Work: Jobs that need more attention and privacy reported lower ergonomic risks.
Health Status: Employees with chronic illnesses felt their workplaces were riskier than
those without chronic diseases.
Working Hours: Longer working hours were linked with lower scores in safety and
working environment dimensions. The result suggests a negative impact on workplace
safety.
Rest Hours & Age: There was no strong connection between rest hours, age and workplace
ergonomics. This suggests that these factors may not directly affect employees’
perceptions of workplace safety.

What are some strengths and weaknesses of the study?

A strength of this study is that its findings serve practical use. The researchers recognized that
perceptions about ergonomics go beyond health and safety. They bring attention to the various
characteristics of shopping center employees and how that affects how employees see ergonomic
risks at work.

A weakness of the study was using a cross-sectional descriptive design. This study design looks
at one point in time, in this case, for only 3 months. Collecting data for a short period might miss
employees who work certain times or hired later in the year. Secondly, it included many different
types of employees, like security guards, sales consultants, food service workers. Depending on
the job, they will have different exposures and views of ergonomic risks. Lastly, by selecting a
very small sample of shopping mall employees in Turkey, results cannot apply to all shopping
mall employees globally.

Single Most Important Thing (SMIT)

The article says we must get better at spotting ergonomic risks in our workplaces and take action
early to lower the chances of getting hurt or injured (physically and mentally) on the job.

Bottom Line Actionable Message (BLAM)

Whether you are an employee or employer, create a list of ergonomics risks you notice in your
job and your working environment. Next, talk with your employer (if you are an employee) or
employees (if you are the employer) to find out other risks and come up with safe ways to handle
them.
Plain Language Project 3

Refererences

Köse, A., & Gündoğdu, Ö. (2023). Assessment of the impacts of ergonomic risk factors on
shopping centre employees. Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju, 74(4), 273–281.
https://doi.org/10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3741