Training impacts behaviour, but direct link to less injuries isn’t clear, finds review of studies
Your firm needs to reduce absenteeism due to back pain, so you hire an ergonomics trainer who spends a morning teaching your employees to sit properly. Will it make a difference in the long term?
A recent literature review by the Institute for Work and Health (IWH), a Toronto-based non-profit research organization, suggests the training will likely have some impact on employees’ work practices and behaviours. But if you’re looking for statistics on the reduction of symptoms or absenteeism to give to the CEO, you’ll be disappointed.
Lynda Robson, IWH scientist, says it’s difficult to draw a line from training to health outcomes because there are so many variables that come into play.
“Is it that training you introduced at the beginning of the year, or is it the new manager? Is it the new work process? Is it the other health and safety initiatives? That makes it more difficult to detect and feel confident in the health and safety statistics,” she explains.
In the report, A Systemic Review of the Effectiveness of Training and Education Programs for the Protection of Workers, researchers analyzed the results of 22 randomized controlled trial studies from around the world and examined the affect OHS training has on workers.
As Robson expected, the study confirmed education and training leads to safer practices among workers. However, she cautions that, on their own, they may not reduce work-related injuries and illnesses.
“You can educate people to sit properly in order to reduce musculoskeletal disorders, but if they’re sitting on a wooden chair or at a poorly designed workstation, there’s only so much the education can achieve,” she says.
Multi-component and need specific training is essential to getting a return on investment for health and safety training, according to Jeff Thorne, manager of training and development at the Occupational Safety Group in London, Ont. It’s also important to combine theory with practical application.
But without followup evaluation and monitoring by supervisors, even well-intended training may not result in long-term change, says Thorne.
“Let’s say it is excellent training, the instructors are great, there’s value-added in the course for the participants and they understand it. That doesn’t mean they’re going to go out and follow it,” he says. “Sure we can provide the training, but it’s up to employers to implement it. They need to discipline and enforce it.”
Frequency of training important
Frequency is also critical. Thorne cites a case where a supervisor was convicted after a forklift operator critically injured a pedestrian.
Asked in court how often the worker received training, the supervisor replied that employees were tested on the forklift every three years.
“The question to him was, ‘What do you do on a regular basis to ensure the competency of the operator?’ So they’re basically asking, ‘The person was trained but what was being done between the training?’” he says.
Not enough OHS studies
On the question of effectiveness, a hurdle for IWH researchers was the lack of quality studies that examined the connection between training and eventual health outcomes, such as a reduction in injuries or symptoms. Robson’s team drew the conclusion there was insufficient evidence, but she says other researchers, using a less stringent meta-analysis approach, have found some measure of effectiveness, albeit small.
“When I put it all together, whether it’s no effect or uncertain effect or small effect, it’s all telling me the same thing: We can’t really expect there to be big changes in the workplace by just delivering training to workers,” she says.
No reason to cut training budget
However, a lack of evidence is no reason to take training out of the budget, according to Robson. As mentioned, there is proof that training can influence knowledge and attitudes, which leads to a change in behaviour.
“Because there was strong evidence of impact on work practices, we definitely still recommend that workplaces continue to do OHS training,” she says.
Thorne adds that employers also have a legal obligation to provide training in many circumstances.
“It’s because of the general duty clause, ‘every precaution reasonable for the protection of the workers.’ You can interpret that in many ways, but part of that is making sure people have up-to-date training,” he says.
Thorne says employers could benefit from more detailed research in this field. The IWH research team has recommended several areas for future research, including investigating what is known about factors that affect the transfer of training.
