Helali et al. (2009) in their study stress the
importance of organizational climate and commitment as
critical success factor while using the ergonomics action
checklist. The authors further stress on positive
psychosocial emotion, attitude and perseverance as they
address the challenges spearheading the implementation
of the intervention program. The study reported as much
as 13 940 man-hours spent by the participants in their
study during conducting ergonomics intervention.
Corresponding to the reconfigured intervention program
in this study, it was also regretted that appropriate postintervention
assessment immediately after the
implementation could not be carried out due to financial and
time constraint. We had to compromise with the request of
the participants to end the program as soon as possible as
they had pending household chores remain uncompleted.
As was discussed by Loo and Richardson (2012) in
an article, it appear that ergonomics issues in Malaysia
has not been given the attention it deserved. Most
managers fail to appreciate the potential benefit not only
in terms of workplace safety and health improvement but
ultimately the increase of productivity. The authors
further elaborated that in the current state, there seems to
be misconception of ergonomics which further widen the
gap of awareness and practical application.
On the pre- and post-intervention assessment
including data gathered qualitatively, there were also
several bias applicable to this study. For example, social
desirability bias describe the participants being
compelled to give acceptable responses or faking good.
Besides that, recall bias may also present in this study as
participants were required to remember their MSD
history (Choi and Pak, 2005).
4.3. Summary of the Findings
Participatory Action Oriented Training (PAOT)
approach, was described by Kogi (2006a; 2006b) as
combined participatory approach and the use of action
checklist as the factor of successful intervention in smallscale
workplaces or enterprises such as WIND. He
stressed on the importance of simple, low-cost and good
local practices as the foundation for facilitated
improvement and by networking positive experiences.
In further elaboration, Kogi (2008; 2012a; 2012b)
consistently stressed on the use of locally customized
and adjusted toolkit (action checklist) to reflect basic
ergonomics principles and facilitation of network of
trainers as the key factor towards sustainable proactive
risk management in various workplace setting.
Nevertheless, comparing the overall results of selfreported
prevalence of MSD analyzed at the end of the
follow-up post-intervention, it appears that the PAOT
approach were ineffective in preventing MSD among
harvesters in IG. Although there were improvement of KAP
score within IG, it should be interpreted with caution as the
increment did not appear to significantly differ from CG.
Furthermore, mixed outcomes of effectiveness has
been reported in the study of participatory intervention
in the past. When comparing participatory intervention
across different industries, Rivilis et al. (2008) reported
wide spectrum of positive health outcome even though
the research method and reporting across study were
heterogeneous.
Focusing on intervention conducted for agriculture
sector alone, Lehtola et al. (2008) in an extensive
systematic review reported that injury rates among
agricultural workers were not effectively decreased by
educational interventions while there were mixed
results using legislative restriction in different
countries. The authors further caution in interpreting
the effectiveness of intervention for reducing injuries
through financial incentives.
In any case, it should also be noted that the previously
reported effectiveness of PAOT in various countries such as
WIND were conducted among smallholders and farm
owners or alongside local agricultural workers. However,
the participants were foreign workers working in a profitoriented
large multinational companies with multi-level
homogeneous management system.
Chapman et al. (2004) in an intervention study
explains that the perception among vegetables growers
were in favor of profitability resulted in disregarded
effort of potential future safety benefits by the
intervention. Similar trend was observed in this study not
only of the profit-oriented large multinational companies
but as well as the participants.
Supported by informal conversation with several
participants in this study, we found that most, if not all
harvesters, were breadwinner back in their home country
(Indonesia) where job is scarce and the pay rate was
insufficient as compared to the significantly higher pay
rate as well as currency exchange rate in Malaysia.
Hence, the participants who came far away from their
home country with a primary objective; to earn as much
money and as fast as they could.