Attitudes, needs, and opportunities for training on musculoskeletal disorder risk reduction in masonry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many countries, including Canada, employers have a legal obligation to provide training programs to the new workers to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). However, current safety and health training modalities, including those specific to ergonomic and MSD prevention, have shown limited success in promoting safe motions patterns. As workers gain more experience, they develop the knowledge and skills necessary to consistently demonstrate safer and more productive performance in tasks within their areas of expertise compared to novices and apprentices. Training apprentices using expert work strategies is a potential intervention that can reduce MSD risk while balancing productivity needs. By understanding the perspectives of experts in the field, we investigate the specific needs of masonry workers and their employers to improve masons' safety and health. METHODS: This study conducted qualitative user interviews with eight masonry instructors with more than 20 years of experiences from the Ontario Masonry Training Centre. The eight instructors had an average of 23.9 years of experience as masons with a range between 10- and 43-years. As instructors, they had an average of 6.9 years' experience with a range between 1.5- and 18-years. RESULTS: Thematic analysis using template methodology was carried out on the data collected and identified six key themes: knowledge of muscle injury risks and prevention, safety in masonry, physical demands and MSD risk, the impact of physical demands, safety culture and attitudes, and the role of safety in apprentice training. The instructors' exposure to high physical demands within masonry was a major theme during the interviews. Instructors discussed the high forces, repetition and awkward postures which take a toll on their bodies. Another large theme was about the safety culture and attitudes within the trade. Younger apprentices often think themselves invincible and show less concern towards musculoskeletal safety, whereas the older masons are more concerned. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the need for apprenticeship training programs to include modules on safe lifting practices, ergonomic awareness, and long-term injury prevention. They also emphasize the importance of mentorship from experienced masons, structured rehabilitation support after injuries, and connecting ergonomic practices to productivity outcomes. Instructors' perspectives provide valuable context to guide the development of ergonomic training systems that are both relevant to masonry work and tailored to the needs of apprentices and their employers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".