dc.creatorGLINA, Debora Miriam Raab
dc.creatorCARDOSO, Adriana S.
dc.creatorISOSAKI, Mitsue
dc.creatorROCHA, Lys E.
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-19T18:22:44Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-04T15:10:30Z
dc.date.available2012-10-19T18:22:44Z
dc.date.available2018-07-04T15:10:30Z
dc.date.created2012-10-19T18:22:44Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifierINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ERGONOMICS, v.41, n.2, p.96-105, 2011
dc.identifier0169-8141
dc.identifierhttp://producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/22839
dc.identifier10.1016/j.ergon.2010.12.005
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.12.005
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1619570
dc.description.abstractAim: To identify how the methodology of Reflection Groups (RG) can contribute to approach social-psychological problems, so often observed as obstacles in PE efforts. The objective was also to verify the contributions from RG to the implementation of ergonomics recommendations, which were a starting point and organized group discussions. Method: A concrete case was used as an illustration, and studied in depth: RG with administration and production workers` representatives from the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics of a cardiologic hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil. RG are temporary thinking groups, taking place outside the workplace and having delegative and consultive participation. They make use of Operative Groups, an adapted form of tripartite group, activity as an instrumental resource, group dynamic techniques and videotaping. In 2007, 31 meetings took place during paid working hours with 7 groups of different composition, ranging from 1.5 h to 3 h. Results: Additionally to the positive effects in communication and psychosocial environment, RG could also contribute to changes in interpersonal relationships, cooperation, personal and work behaviours. By dealing with aspects which could hinder the explicit task: fears, conflicts, and stereotyped beliefs and behaviours; resistance to change could be broken and group members could learn. RG allowed input about new risks; continuous information and feedback about ongoing ergonomics interventions so that immediate corrective action could be taken. The main form of participation was in administrative, organizational, and psychosocial problems which required a better clarification and identification of their real causes, commitment, and elaboration of strategies and negotiation of different stakeholders in their solution. Conclusion: RG takes advantage of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, in face to face communication. The interactions in the groups are task-oriented (explicit task) but attaining groups` goals depends on a relational interaction (implicit task). Relevance to industry: Reflection groups can bring important contributions to ergonomics and industry because they favour the discussion, disclosure of problems and incorporation of solutions, enabling interventions in working organization, psychosocial environment and relationships in a collective and participatory approach, promoting health and social integration. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
dc.relationInternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
dc.rightsCopyright ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess
dc.subjectFood service
dc.subjectHospital
dc.subjectErgonomics
dc.subjectPsychosocial
dc.subjectOccupational health
dc.subjectIntervention
dc.titleParticipatory ergonomics: Understanding the contributions of reflection groups in a hospital food service
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución