Organização do trabalho : ferramentas disponíveis para avaliação e análise

• Ano de defesa: 2015
• Autor(a) principal: Foltran, Fabiana Almeida
• Orientador(a): Coury, Helenice Jane Cote Gil
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Carlos; Câmpus São Carlos
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia - PPGFt
• Palavras-chave em Português: Avaliação observacional; Ergonomia; Saúde ocupacional; Fisioterapia; Avaliação em saúde
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Observational assessment; Ergonomics; Occupational health; Physiotherapy; Health evaluation
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FISIOTERAPIA E TERAPIA OCUPACIONAL
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/20.500.14289/7712

Work organization aspects has become increasingly important in the field of ergonomics, since they can affect both the health of workers as productivity, profitability and product quality. Therefore, this thesis has as main objectives to investigate the organization of work in a more conceptual perspective and in a more applied and for that two studies were conducted; one of them being a systematic review and the other a study a application of two different approaches to assessment of the organization. Study 1. Work organization, although currently very studied, does not present a consensus on the concept and also on the tool to be used to evaluate this aspect. This makes it difficult to compare results and to provide scientific evidence. Thus, the aim of the first study was identify the tools available in the literature to assess the organizational aspects of the work environment. Methods: We performed searches in major databases. Two reviewers independently selected relevant studies. We included studies that evaluated the organization of work and reporting tool used for this purpose. The psychometric properties of the tools used in the studies were checked and content of the tools was analyzed in the light of NIOSH concept of work organization. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results and Conclusions: The electronic search yielded 4431 references. At the end of the selection process, 43 studies were included and 15 tools were identified to evaluate the organization of work. The tool used for the most os the studies was the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) (49%). Considering the definition of organization of the NIOSH study, only two tools included 50% of items of that definition. The external context of work was neglected in studies, have been evaluated in a single item by the tool proposed by Howard et al. Few psychometric properties were reported in the studies reviewed. Thus, studies are needed to evaluate more organizational aspects systematically and methodological quality to contribute to the conceptual and operational understanding of this construct. Study 2. After identifying these tools, analysis of its contents and considering that for a more accurate assessment of work organization, it might be necessary to consider both the worker's perspective, as the observer, a second study was proposed with the objective of assess the organizational aspects of nursing staff in both perspectives. Methods: A total of 163 nurses of three sectors of the were analysed. Work organization was evaluated using two tools, the JCQ and the checklist proposed by Howard et al. Data were analyzed descriptively and by statistical tests (Chi-square). Results and Conclusions: There was a significant difference between the three sectors for control (p = 0.050) and social support (p = 0.030). The sectors had common aspects related to the general functioning of the hospital. The different aspects related to the task performed, the content of the work, female predominance in the sectors and the possibility of informal break. Few items of the two instruments correlated with each other, suggesting that they contemplate different aspects of the organization. Therefore, it is suggested that these instruments are used in addition. These results confirm the great variety of instruments identified in Study 1 and therefore the lack of consensus on the definition.