safety, health and work environment – a study of employees in the norwegian offshore oil & gas...

Safety, Health and Work Environment – a Study of Employees in the Norwegian Offshore Oil & Gas Industry

Anne Mette Bjerkan

PhD Student

Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture

University of Oslo

E-mail: a.m.bjerkan@tik.uio.no

Study Objectives

1) Examine associations between self-reported health, work environment, perceived risk and work safety climate

2) Examine changes with regard to perception of work factors and self-reported health in two different samples collected in 2001 and 2003

Theoretical Background

Work environment Perceived risk Safety

Health

- Physical conditions E.g. noise, lighting conditions, ergonomic design of the workplace (Parkes, 1999)- Psychosocial conditions E.g. job demands, control etc.-Organization of work Management etc. (Mearns & Flin, 1996)

- The subjective assessment of risk influenced - Stress - Health - Well-being - From a study Of Norwegian Offshore Oil employees (Rundmo, 1992)

- The employee's perception of the safety work within an organization has in previous studies been linked to job stress and perceived risk at work (Cree & Kelloway, 1997)

- Musculoskeletal diseases- Cardiovascular disorders- Psychological complaints - General health status

Methodological Background• Cross sectional survey design (2001 & 2003)

2001: Questionnaire distributed to nurses on selected offshore oil installations

2003: Questionnaire distributed to all heliports which shuttle employees to

the Norwegian Continental Shelf• Population:

– “All individuals employed on Norwegian offshore installations”

• Sample: – Employees at work in a given time-period – Different installations, and different companies operating on

the NCS

Questionnaire

• Describe the employees perception of health, environment and safety (HES) within the industry

• Describe what contributes to the perception of HES work

Sample

• 2001– N=3310– Response rate: 49.1 % – Mostly male

(90.5 %, N=2994)– Age, majority between

31 and 50

(65.4%, N= 2167)

• 2003– N=8567– Response rate: 45.8 %– Mostly male

(90.0 %, N=7741)– Age, majority between

31 and 50

(64.6 %, N= 5542)

Data Analyses

• Exploratory factor analyses – Chronbach’s alpha

• Confirmatory factor analyses

• MANOVA– Examine changes between 2001 and 2003

– Age as a covariate

• Linear structural equation modelling (LISREL)– MIMIC modelling (analysing subgroup effects)

Results / Dimensions

• Self-reported health – Six symptoms (e.g. impaired

hearing, musculoskeletal problems)

• Perceived limitations in daily activities while offshore

– Seven items (e.g. walking in stairs and ladders )

• Perceived safety at work– Four dimensions, four single

items (e.g. communication about safety)

• Perceived risk

– Two dimensions (controllable and uncontrollable sources of risk)

• Work environment– Three dimension (e.g. the

physical and psychosocial work environment)

• Age – Three contrasts

Estimated Model – 2001

Method of estimation: WLS Χ2=7685.167, d.f.=358, RMSEA=0.078, GFI=0.959, CFI=0.921, NNFI=0.910 • Accounted for 13.9% of the

variance in self-reported health status (R2=0.139)

• Age a significant contributor:

– Employees between 31-40 experienced less symptoms of self reported ill-health

• Self-reported health explained a large amount of the variance in perceived limitations in daily activities while offshore (R2=0.572).

Workenvironment

Riskperception

Safety

C1*

C2*

C3*

δ=0.99 S1

δ=0.14

δ=0.99

δ=0.77

δ=0.58

S2

S3

S4

S5

δ=0.79

δ=0.78

δ=0.60

S6

S7

S8

0.12

-0.93

0.10

0.47

0.65

0.63

-0.48

0.46

δ=0.45

δ=0.79

R1

R2

0.76

0.79

δ=0.69

δ=0.56

δ=0.63

W1

W2

W3

0.56

0.67

0.61

δ=0.00 C1 1.00

δ=0.00 C2 1.00

δ=0.00 C2 1.00

ε=0.27

ε=0.47

ε=0.82

ε=0.83

ε=-0.16

ε=0.90

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

0.86

0.73

0.42

0.42

1.08

0.32

Health

ε=0.35

ε=0.25

ε=0.53

ε=0.30

ε=0.37

ε=0.58

ε=0.27

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

L7

0.80

0.87

0.68

0.83

0.80

0.65

0.86

Limitations

-0.05 (-6.16)

R2=0.13

R2=0.57

-0.76 (-37.46)

Workenvironment

Riskperception

Safety

C1*

C2*

C3*

δ=0.52 S1

δ=0.36

δ=0.70

δ=0.70

δ=0.71

S2

S3

S4

S5

δ=0.76

δ=0.73

δ=0.59

S6

S7

S8

0.69

-0.80

0.54

-0.52

-0.54

-0.64

-0.55

-0.49

δ=0.49

δ=0.78

R1

R2

0.72

0.47

δ=0.65

δ=0.51

δ=0.61

W1

W2

W3

0.59

0.70

0.63

δ=0.00 C1 1.00

δ=0.00 C2 1.00

δ=0.00 C2 1.00

ε=0.31

ε=0.51

ε=0.66

ε=0.62

ε=0.30

ε=0.96

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

0.83

0.70

0.58

0.62

0.84

0.20

Health

ε=0.37

ε=0.30

ε=0.58

ε=0.34

ε=0.38

ε=0.47

ε=0.37

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

L7

0.79

0.84

0.65

0.81

0.79

0.72

0.80

Limitations

-0.10 (-11.96)

-0.84 (-55.09)

R2=0.71

R2=0.11

• Accounted for 11 % of the variance in self-reported health symptoms (R2= 0.11)

• Age contributed significantly to the perception of symptoms of ill-health. – 31-40 year olds

experience less symptoms of ill-health

• Self-reported health accounted for a large proportion of the respondents’ perceived limitations in daily activities offshore (β=-0.84).

Estimated Model – 2003Method of estimation: WLS, χ2=20232.851, d.f.=358, RMSEA=0.080, GFI=0.951, CFI=0.877, NNFI=0.859

Self-reported Health

• Year group – 2003: slightly better perceived

general health status

– 2003: less limitations in daily activities due to health status

• Age group – Older employees less satisfied

with general health status– Older employees more

symptoms of ill-health – Older employees: More

limitations in daily activities due to ill-health

Year group Age group

General health status

[F(1,11643)=6.30, p<0.05]

[F(3,11643)=4.69, p<0.05]

Sum score ill-health

No significant differences

[F(3,11643)=65.56, p<0.000]

Perceived limitations

[F(1,11643)=61.77, p<0.00]

[F(3,11643)=122.90, p<0.00]

Safety, Risk and the Working Environment

• Year group – 2003 employees were more

satisfied with the safety climate, perceived less risk and evaluated the work environment more favourably

• Age group – Older employees more

satisfied with the perceived safety climate and the work environment

– Younger employees perceived more dangers associated with work

Year group Age group

Perceived safety climate

[F(1,11803)=848.09, p<0.000]

[F(3,11083)=22.47, p<0.000]

Perceived risk [F (1,11803) = 88.33, p<0.000]

[F (3,11803) = 6.13, p<0.000]

Work environment

[F (1,11803) = 78.81, p<0.000]

[F (3,11803) = 10.25, p<0.000]

Summary • A small percentage of the variance in self-reported health

status was accounted for by perceived safety climate, perceived risk and perception of the working environment (between 10 and 20 percent)

• Strong relationship between self-reported health symptoms and perceived limitations in daily activities while offshore

• Age appeared to be the strongest predictor for self-reported health of the variables included

• Differences between the groups were identified with regard to:• Health

– 2003 sample more satisfied• Perception of safety, risk and the work environment

– Overall the 2003 employees appeared to be more satisfied with the before-mentioned aspects.

Conclusions– Safety climate, risk perception and work

environment contribute significantly to the explained variance in health, although this contribution is modest in both samples

– Physical aspects of the working situation and other factors need to be included to further understand what contributes to ill-health among Norwegian offshore employees

– People who are absent from work during the time of the study, should also be included in order to obtain a more complete picture