Appendix 1a.

	Theoretical/Conceptual works	Summary	Themes/Indicators of Change
1	Weiner BJ. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science. 2009 Dec;4(1):67.	Distinguishes between the context of change and content of change. Makes a case that change readiness necessarily involves a given change effort. On the other hand, change capacity involves the pre-existing factors that affect readiness before a change effort is set forth. Organizational readiness: organizational members’ shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy). (Note: Weiner refers to the use of ‘readiness’ as a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action).	Change commitment: organizational members’ shared resolve to pursue the courses of action involved in change implementation. Change efficacy: organizational members’ shared beliefs in their collective capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action involved in change implementation. Before the content of change is defined, contextual factors that affect readiness are: (1) an organizational culture that embraces risk-taking, (2) flexible policies and procedures, (3) positive organization climate, and (4) the quality of past experiences with change. The author argues that these 4 determinants describe an organization’s CAPACITY to implement change rather than readiness to do so (p.7).
2	Rafferty AE, Jimmieson NL, Armenakis AA. Change readiness amultilevel review. Journal of Management. 2013 Jan;39(1):110–35.	Outlines the affective aspects of readiness for change at the individual, team and organizational level. Emotions and cognitions both form readiness attitudes. Change attitudes are also contingent on a specific change effort that is set forth.	Overall, when individuals, groups and organizations adopt thoughts and feelings about a change that are positive (and in agreement), they are more ready for that change than if their thoughts and feelings were more negative (and disjointed among workers).
3	Cummings T, Worley C. (2014). Organization development and change. 10th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning; 2014.	Written from an organizational development perspective. Provides guidance for diagnosing issues at every level of an organization using systems models. Effective diagnosis can provide the organizational development practitioner guidance toward planning and implementation phases. (Ch. 5) Also, the authors refer to readiness for change as one aspect of change management in which a deep felt need for change is created. (Ch. 8)	One of the major points the authors describe in several sections, is that change depends on the magnitude. Organizations can engage in incremental change or fundamental/transformational change. Identifying where the efforts lie dictates completely different strategies for assessing readiness, and of course, for ultimately implementing the change.
4	Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2010.	Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Diffusion is a special type of communication concerned with the spread of messages that are perceived as containing new ideas. Thus some degree of uncertainty and perceived risk is involved in the diffusion process.	This text describes a classification of adopter categories to differentiate among members of a social system on the basis of innovativeness. In other words, the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively early in adopting new ideas as compared with other members of a system.
5	Hollnagel E. Safety-I and safety–II: The past and future of safety management. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2014.	When something goes wrong, such as an infectious outbreak, a communication breakdown, a medication failure, or a wrong patient-wrong procedure problem, it is unlikely to be a unique event. It is rather something that has gone well many times before and that will go well many times again. It is necessary to understand how such everyday activities go well—how they succeed—in order to understand how they might fail. From a Safety-II view, they do not fail because of some kind of error or malfunction, but because of unexpected combinations of everyday performance variability.	The definition of safety should be changed from ‘avoiding that something goes wrong’ to ‘ensuring that everything goes right.’ Safety-II is the system’s ability to function as required under varying conditions, so that the number of intended and acceptable outcomes (in other words, everyday activities) is as high as possible. The basis for safety and safety management must therefore be an understanding of why things go right, which translates to an understanding of everyday activities. Safety-I focuses on events at the tails of the normal distribution, and especially events on the left tail that represent accidents. Such events are easy to see because they are rare and because the outcomes differ from the usual. They are, however, difficult to explain—the attractiveness of root causes and linear models notwithstanding. Because they are rare and because they are difficult to understand, they are also difficult to change and manage.
6	Imada AS. A macroergonomic approach to reducing work-related injuries. In, Hendrick, HW, Kliener, BM, editors. Macroergonomics: theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. p. 151–72.	Argues for a macroergonomic approach to reducing injuries at work. A systems approach is more human-centered, and ignoring the complexities of humanware is precisely why traditional approaches to injury reduction fail.	A macroergonomic approach takes into account: situational factors, management factors, and the human factor (attitudes, emotions, attention). To provide an example, Imada walks the reader through an intervention case study using the stated macroergonomic approach to reduce accidents.
7	Sorensen G, Himmelstein JS, Hunt MK, Youngstrom R, Hebert JR, Hammond, SK, et al. A model for worksite cancer prevention: integration of health protection and health promotion in the WellWorks project. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1995 Sep;10(1):55–62.	Defines what an integrated approach to worker health is, and provides seven indicators of an integrated approach in the workplace. All 7 indicators are also operationalized as measures. The indicators show a strong theme through the management level of an organization but also involve the individual/line level workers.	The goal of the article is to provide a way to gauge how far along a continuum an organization is toward their level of implementation of an integrated/Total Worker Health efforts. As the summary states, the 7 indicators provide conceptual value toward an integrated approach, but the measures are not fully developed because they probably pose more challenges (i.e. a concept like leadership commitment is likely to be multidimensional and difficult to measure).