Skip to main content

Efficacy of text messaging apprentices to reinforce ergonomics and safety voice training (Kincl et al., 2020)

Review Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest. 

Citation

Kincl, L. D., Hess, J. A., Weeks, D. L., Vaughan, A., & Anton, D. (2020). Efficacy of text messaging apprentices to reinforce ergonomics and safety voice training. Journal of Safety Research, 74, 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.04.007

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of text messages on health and safety knowledge and behaviors. 
  • This study used a nonexperimental design to compare ergonomics knowledge and behaviors between two groups of apprentices. The authors conducted statistical tests using the text message responses to assess group differences in outcomes. 
  • The study found a significant relationship between text messaging and ergonomics behaviors.  
  • This study receives a low evidence rating. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to text messaging; other factors are likely to have contributed. 

Features of the Study

The study used a nonexperimental design to examine the efficacy of text messages to reinforce ergonomics knowledge and behaviors. The sample included 119 masonry apprentices who participated in a randomized controlled trial and received SAVE ergonomics training. Of the 119 participants, 54 participants completed SAVE ergonomics training only (Ergonomics) and 65 participants completed both SAVE ergonomics training and SAVE training on using safety voice (Ergonomics + Safety Voice). The majority of the sample was male (97%), with larger percentages of White participants (60%) than African American/Black (20%) or Latino/Hispanic (16%). The average age of participants was 28.8 and less than half of the participants (48%) graduated from high school.  

For six months after SAVE training, the authors sent participants text messages to reinforce the knowledge and skills they learned. The participants received more frequent texts in the first month, with the number of text messages decreasing gradually in later months. There were 40 texts about ergonomics and 28 texts about safety voice. Half of the text messages included questions about knowledge or behavior and requested a response. The other half provided a reminder about the training with no request for response. Ergonomics participants received the 40 texts about ergonomics whereas Ergonomics + Safety Voice participants received both (a total of 68 text messages). The authors conducted statistical tests using the text message responses to assess group differences in ergonomics knowledge and behavior.  

Findings

Health and safety 

  • The study did not find significant differences in correct responses to ergonomics knowledge texts between Ergonomics participants and Ergonomics + Safety Voice participants.  
  • However, the study found that Ergonomics participants reported significantly greater consideration of safe ways to manage lifting than Ergonomics + Safety Voice participants (100% vs. 80%).  

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The authors did not account for preexisting differences between the groups in ergonomics knowledge or behaviors before the start of the text messages. These preexisting differences between the groups—and not the text messages—could explain the observed differences in outcomes. Also, the authors noted that the response rates to the text messages was higher among Ergonomics participants than the Ergonomics + Safety Voice participants. The two groups received a different amount of text messages, with the Ergonomics + Safety Voice group receiving more study text messages which may have impacted their lower response rate and could explain the differences in responses. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs. 

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to text messaging; other factors are likely to have contributed.  

Reviewed by CLEAR

May 2024