new a survey of the health, stress and fatigue of australian seafarers · 2019. 3. 7. ·...

A survey of the health, stress and fatigue of Australian Seafarers ISBN: 0-642-32007-1 A.W.Parker PhD (1), L.M.Hubinger PhD (1), S. Green PhD (1), L. Sargent BA MOP (2) and R. Boyd BHMS M Com Env H (1) 1. School of Human Movement Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2. School of Management, Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

viii

PREFACE

The Australian maritime industry is composed of a blue water or trading fleet, andvessel operators that are contractors to the offshore oil and gas industry. The tradingfleet is comprised of 66 vessels which are predominantly dedicated to carrying cargo(e.g. oil tankers, bulk cargo and container carriers). These vessels mostly operate incoastal trades, with a small number involved in regular international trade. Vesseloperators in the offshore oil and gas industry provide and/or crew 50 specialisedvessels. These vessels service companies involved in the exploration, developmentand production from oil and gas fields in the coastal waters of Australia and to a lesserextent in South East Asian regions.

Historically, the physical rigours of working and living at sea have been accepted as‘part of the job’. In line with international trends over the last five years, the Australianmaritime industry has undergone major reforms to improve efficiency andcompetitiveness. These reforms have altered aspects of the physical and culturalenvironment of seafarers. The ‘romance of the sea’ is now characterised by small crewsizes, increased technology and little or no time ashore in foreign ports. The impact ofthese changes on the stress, fatigue and health of seafarers is not known. Thisprompted the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to initiate a project to investigatethis problem.

The present study describes the health and lifestyle behaviours of a large sample of theAustralian seafaring population. It also examines levels of stress reported by seafarers,and attempts to explore those factors which most contribute to work stress in themaritime industry. No attempt has been made in the investigation to differentiatebetween the “blue water” and the “offshore” sectors.

The importance of this document to the history of the Australian maritime industry issubstantial. It is the first report to present information on the entire industry, and assuch provides a benchmark for consideration of future industry reform for the benefitsof seafarers and other industry groups. Additionally, it contributes to the internationalmaritime database.

x

DEFINITION OF TERMS

AT SEA = While working at sea. No attempt has been made to considertime in port separately.

ASHORE = While ashore on leave.

OCCUPATIONAL These groups are based on the four groups at sea: pilots,GROUPS = masters/mates, engineers and crew.

PILOT/S = Coastal pilot/s operating in the Great Barrier Reef region ofQueensland.

1

BACKGROUNDWhile individual sectors within themaritime industry have beeninvestigated previously, a comprehensivesurvey of the fatigue, stress andoccupational health of maritimepersonnel has not previously beenconducted in Australia or overseas. Theresults of this survey therefore providesome structure to issues of concernpreviously identified or presumed in theindustry. Additionally, the surveyattempts to quantify the extent to whichthese issues impact on the health andsources of stress of maritime personnel.

Seafarers in Australia spend about halfof each year working and living awayfrom home in a unique environment.This environment is characterised byworking conditions which areexaggerated by harsh environmentalfactors and an unsteady workingplatform, particularly during badweather. At sea, the separation of workand recreation is not as clear as in shorebased situations. Additionally, theship’s complement is made up ofseafarers from different socio-economic,political and educational backgroundswho are expected to work and livetogether in harmony for the duration ofthe voyage. Maritime pilots differsomewhat from the other sea-based

occupational groups due to their workpractices involving frequent changes ofships. Overall however, the factorswhich characterise work at sea present aunique and complex array of potentialstressors which compound theoccupational and lifestyle issues foundin other industries.

Many of the unique aspects of seafaringare unchangeable. However, within theconstraints of the working environmentand economic competitiveness of theindustry, it is possible to modify,supplement or develop new strategies toreduce the impact these factors have onthe health of individual seafarers. As abasis for the systematic consideration ofthese issues, a cross-sectional surveywas conducted as the first stage of anindepth investigation of the Australianmaritime industry.

The response rate across the wholeindustry was 36.5%, with response ratesfor individual occupational groupsbeing 50% for pilots, 49% for masters/mates, 47% for engineers, and 23% forthe crew. This relatively low responserate, particularly amongst the crew,means that respondents may beunderepresented and caution istherefore required in the interpretationof some of the results in this report.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

2

INDUSTRY PROFILEThe Australian seafaring workforce isrelatively old, almost entirely male andpredominantly Australian born. A highdegree of stability exists in theworkforce as reflected by:

• Long years of service in the industryand in present working positions.

These characteristics indicate seafarersmay be unaccustomed to change andmay find difficulty adjusting to majorindustry reform.

Within the industry there weredifferences in the workforcecharacteristics of the occupational groupswith pilots being relatively older, andwith a large percentage of this groupserving for more than 30 years at sea. Ahigher percentage of crew than otherseafaring groups were single or divorced.

HEALTH STATUSSelf-reported health data showed thatthe prevalence of a number of physicaland mental health problems amongstseafarers was consistent with Australianpopulation data, with the exception ofblood pressure, which was slightlyhigher. Some differences were identifiedbetween the occupational groups with:

• Engineers, and to a lesser degree crew,reporting a higher incidence ofauditory problems; and

• Pilots tending to display morecardiovascular risk factors.

HEALTH-RELATED BEHAVIOURAT SEA AND ASHOREPositive long term health outcomes areclosely linked to suitable patterns ofhealthy lifestyle behaviours including

appropriate amounts of exercise, sleep,

relaxation and the avoidance of risk

factors such as smoking and excessive

drinking. The home and away nature of

seafaring creates additional pressure in

adopting and maintaining regular

health-enhancing behaviours. The survey

therefore compared health and lifestyle

behaviours while at sea and ashore.

While results are based on self-reported

behaviours they are nevertheless

adequate for the purpose of this stage of

the project.

Smoking, Drinking and ExerciseIn general, seafarers displayed greater

levels of health compromising

behaviours than the Australian

community at large. Smoking and

alcohol consumption were higher, and

fewer seafarers complied with the

National Heart Foundations (NHF)

guidelines for exercise when at sea or

ashore. Compared with the limited data

from other maritime studies, the health-

related behaviour of the Australian

seafarers was either better or similar.

Differences were found between the

occupational groups comprising the

industry with:

• A higher percentage of crew smoking;

• A higher percentage of crew and to alesser extent engineers exceeding theNHF guidelines for alcoholconsumption when at sea; and

• A higher percentage of engineers thanother groups not meeting the NHFguidelines for exercise when at sea.

3

SleepMaritime data indicates some sleepdisruption will inevitably occur whenworking at sea in a 24-hour industry. Theresults of this survey define the extentand nature of this pattern in Australianseafarers. The majority (70%) of thesample reported fair to poor to very poorquality of sleep at sea; and 50% reportedless than 6 hours of daily sleep at sea.Within the industry differences wereidentified between occupational groupswhich may be chiefly related to theirspecific roles and responsibilities:

• Pilots and engineers reported a higherincidence of poor quality sleep; and

• A much larger percentage of pilotsthan other groups reported 6 hours orless of daily sleep at sea.

A large proportion of miscellaneouscomments from seafarers expressedconcern about sleep quality at sea andthe contribution of poor sleep patterns toongoing fatigue at sea.

StressExposure to ongoing elevated stresslevels has a negative impact on physicaland mental health as well as workperformance. A significant percentage(80%) of the total sample reportedoccasional to frequent stress at sea, with60% indicating that their stress levelswere in the moderate to high category.

Differences were identified between theoccupational categories with:

• Masters/mates reporting a higherincidence of occasional to frequentstress and a higher incidence ofmoderate to high level stress bycomparison with crew members;

• Pilots reported occasional, but highstress levels; and

• The frequency and levels of reportedstress tended to be lower in the crewthan other groups.

The group variations in self-reportedstress may relate to differences in eitherwork tasks and/or in the type oftransition between ship and shore forthe groups. That is, masters/mates,engineers and crew become settled on aship and stay in that mode for the entireduration of a voyage. In contrast, thework pattern of pilots involvesalternating between shorter on boardtime and living in alternateaccommodation away from home whileawaiting the next work assignment.These factors may impact on howindividuals report stress levels at work.

RelaxationDaily relaxation is an important aspect ofwellness and of particular relevance toseafarers whose recreation at sea occursin the workplace. The majority ofseafarers reported 1-3 hours of relaxationeach day, with a small percentage ofofficers and crew reporting no dailyrelaxation while at sea. The on call natureof pilotage duties were reflected in thelarge percentage of this group reportingno daily relaxation at sea.

NutritionNutrition plays an important role ingood health and optimal workperformance, particularly in demandingphysical environments. Working andliving at sea is also associated with areliance on shipboard catering. Theresults of the survey provided some

4

evidence to suggest that seafarersnutritional habits were compromised tosome extent at sea with:

• Increased consumption of sugar andfat by comparison with thatconsumed ashore.

Data detailing nutritional attitudesindicated that seafarers were moreaware of the relevance of nutrition, wereless positive about the importance ofnutrition to people’s lives, but moreexplorative with food than a normativegroup. All occupational groups ratedthe relevance of nutrition in their liveshighly. Masters/mates, engineers andcrew tended to consume more sugar andfat at sea than ashore; pilots on the otherhand consumed these foods morefrequently while ashore.

Comments from some seafarerssupported the findings related to foodhabits and nutritional attitudes. Forexample, concern was expressed aboutthe amount of fried food and the absenceof low-fat foods on some ships.

Drug Use and AwarenessIn this survey, drug use and awareness isassociated with the use of bothprescription and non-prescription drugsincluding caffeine. The scale essentiallymeasures the level of functioningwithout the unnecessary use of drugs;that is the level of drug free functioning.By comparison with a normative group,seafarers had a slightly lower level ofdrug free functioning.

SummaryThe results of the study thus far suggestthat being at sea may significantlyimpact on the health-related behavioursof seafarers. When returning ashore,health-related behaviour improved withbetter sleep, lower stress, and increasedparticipation in exercise.

Moreover, seafarers commentssupported these findings, emphasisingthe importance of quality time ashore toenjoy family life, participate in familyrecreational outings and to generallyrelax before returning to sea.

5

OCCUPATIONAL STRESSMajor reforms in the maritime industryhave the potential to impact onoccupational stress levels. Therefore, one ofthe aims of the project was to determineboth the industry-specific and generalsources of occupational stress.

Industry Specific FactorsCertain questions measured the level ofdemand from maritime industry specificfactors. These were: environmentalhardships at sea, bad weather, missinghome, broken rest, long working hours(including inadequate rest breaks), andindustry change.

Within the industry there were somedifferences between the occupationalcategories:

• While all groups reported a similar levelof stress as a function of bad weather,missing home, and long working hours,there was a tendency for pilots to reportless stress from some industry specificissues;

• Engineers, and to a lesser degree, crewreported more stress than other groupsfrom hardships associated with thework environment;

• Engineers reported more stress thanother groups from broken rest; and

• While a high percentage of all groupsreported significant demands fromindustry change; this factor affectedcrew members more than other groups.

General Sources of Pressure atWorkThis scale measures the reported level ofpressure from various sources includingfactors intrinsic to the job, managerial role,relationships with others, career andachievement, organisational structure andthe home/work interface.

Seafarers reported a higher level of stressthan normative groups on all measures ofsources of work pressure. The greatestsource of pressure identified for allseafarers was the home/work interface,that is, the overlap between home andwork. This result was not surprising giventhat all groups are involved in the homeand away nature of seafaring. Missinghome, being away for long periods, anddifficulties associated with the transitionbetween ship and shore were commonelements of concern.

With the exceptions of career andachievement and the home/workinterface, differences between theoccupational groups were evident in theamount of pressure experienced as afunction of all other sources of workpressure. This finding is not unexpectedgiven the divergent demographicbackgrounds of the groups.

Factors contributing to the sources of workpressure were chiefly industry specificsuch as long working hours, weather,environmental hardships at sea, andmissing home, with long working hoursbeing the chief contributing factor to mostsources of work pressure.

Job SatisfactionThis scale measures satisfaction on anumber of aspects of the job. Theseinclude:

• Achievement, value and growth(current scope for advancement);

• The job itself;

• Organisational design and structure(structural aspect; communication,implementation of change);

• Organisational process (internalprocesses; process of promotion,decision making, freedom and

6

flexibility in the job) and

• Personal relationships.

Compared with normative groups,seafarers reported similar levels ofsatisfaction with achievement, value andgrowth, but were less satisfied with otherorganisational and personal aspects of theworkplace. Miscellaneous commentsfrom seafarers highlighted difficultieswith personal and professionalrelationships at sea on some ships.

For all seafarers, the most satisfyingaspect of working at sea was the job itself;that is the type and scope of the job tasks.Not unexpectedly, because of the differingwork tasks and responsibilities at sea,occupational groups reported differentlevels of satisfaction on all other aspectsof the workplace with the exception ofpersonal relationships.

Factors which contributed a moderateamount of variance to the sources of jobsatisfaction were divided between indus-try specific sources of stress, particularlychange in the industry, and lifestylefactors such as stress and quality of sleep.

Mental and Physical Ill HealthCompared with normative data, seafarersreported fewer mental health and morephysical health problems. There were nosignificant group differences in the levelof mental ill health, but officers and crewexperienced more physical ill health thanpilots despite the older age profile of thelatter group.

The factors contributing to mental illhealth were chiefly industry specificsuch as long working hours; whereas thefactors contributing to physical ill healthwere chiefly related to lifestyle, such asstress level and frequency and quality ofsleep.

SummaryThe results of the survey show a relativelyolder, complex but stable workforceworking and living in an isolated andharsh environment. While at sea, healthand lifestyle behaviours are compromisedto some degree and when returningashore these behaviours are improved.

The seafarer experiences a relatively highlevel of occupational stress; however,seafarers reported being satisfied withthe job itself in spite of dissatisfactionwith organisational and personal aspectsof work such as receiving appropriatesupervision, participation in decisionmaking and poor interpersonalrelationships.

The level of occupational stress associ-ated with sources of work pressure andthe level of job satisfaction varied be-tween the occupational groups. However,for all groups, the greatest source of workpressure was the home/work interface,and for officers and crew the mostsatisfying aspect of the workplace wasthe job itself.

The chief contributing factors to stresswere a relatively small number ofindustry specific factors including longworking hours, change in the industry,broken rest and missing home andlifestyle factors such as stress and sleep.This indicates that while a complex rangeof factors impact on working and livingat sea, considerable progress in reducingoccupational stress may be achieved byaddressing a relatively small number ofissues. These are long working hours,broken rest, missing home and sleepquality. Although the stress associatedwith these factors cannot be eliminatedentirely, attention to these may positivelycontribute to work pressure, jobsatisfaction and health.

7

The following recommendations arebased on a number of informationsources. While they are principallyfounded on the detailed analysis of theindustry survey, supporting informationhas been drawn from the maritimeliterature, consultation with keystakeholders and additional commentsvolunteered from survey respondents.

The recommendations need to beconsidered in the proper context of theaims of the study and the purpose of therecommendations themselves. The studyaims were to use survey data to:

(i) Develop a profile of the Australianmaritime industry including itsphysical health and healthbehaviours;

(ii) Determine the levels of occupationalstress; and

(iii) Highlight (by the use of statisticalmodelling techniques) potential job/industry sectors and issues requiringfurther investigation.

Thus, the purpose of the recommendationsis not to formulate industry policy, butrather to provide some direction forconducting objective assessment whenaddressing issues of immediate or futureconcern.

The considerable variation in

circumstances experienced by employeesdue to the diverse nature of the industry,

presents a problem when applying

effective recommendations involvingindustry-wide issues. To overcome these

difficulties to some degree, many of the

recommendations refer to specificoccupational groups which appear to

experience greater problems with certain

issues. It is anticipated that these issuescan then be addressed by a particular

occupational section (e.g. engineers).

However, it is also understood that evenwithin occupational groups there is

considerable variation in working

conditions.

Suggestions regarding approaches that

may be useful in any intervention

designed to address these issues in asystematic manner are based on the

present findings, comments from

seafarers, consultation with industry,and the success of these strategies in

other industrial settings. In many cases

the recommendations involve astrengthening and coordination of

existing systems either within the

industry or associated organisations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

8

The study has identified a relatively small number of mainlyindustry specific and lifestyle factors as the chief contributors tooccupational stress. The industry specific factors were: longworking hours, change in the industry, the home/work interface(missing home), broken rest and environmental hardships. Thelifestyle factors were sleep and stress. In addition, the analysisidentified that seafarers’ health was compromised at sea to varyingdegrees by behaviour patterns relating to smoking, drinking,exercise, relaxation and nutrition.

Therefore, the two broad areas targeted in the followingrecommendations are occupational stress and health and lifestylefactors. Within these areas, report findings have been used toprioritise the identified issues to be considered and addressed.

PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

9

RECOMMENDATION 1

Long working hoursA review of work scheduling, including

the duration of rest breaks should be

undertaken with a view to developing

and testing procedures that will reduce

the impact of these factors on

occupational stress.

Long working hours includinginadequate rest between periods of duty,are given high priority. This priority isbased on the considerable weight ofevidence in the report relating to thenegative impact of long working hourson the occupational stress levels ofemployees. Specifically, this evidencerelates to findings on:

(i) Long working hours being thegreatest contributor to most sourcesof work pressure, and mental illhealth (Sections 10 and 12); and

(ii) The demands associated with longworking hours affected the majorityof members of each of theoccupational groups. The impact ofextended hours was greater for thoseinvolved in watchkeeping and on callduties. The present findings on longworking hours were also consistentwith extended hours of work shownin the international maritimeliterature. Furthermore,miscellaneous comments fromseafarers supported findings relatingto the impact of long working hoursacross the industry.

Long working hours are a complex issue,but a closer examination of theprocedures for monitoring work hours

and schedules should be undertaken. Itis clearly understood that operating a 24hour industry in an isolated environmentwill result in extra work hours from timeto time. However, respondents suggestedthat following major industry reform,issues such as decreased crew sizes,increased commercial pressure, and longworking hours have contributed to bothacute and chronic fatigue. In some cases,particularly during periods involvingheavy traffic or bad weather, seafarersraised concern that safety may becompromised as a result of persistentfatigue. It should be noted that work/resthours are applied in Australia asprescribed by the InternationalConvention on Standards for Trainingand Certification of Watchkeepers (1995).

A comprehensive approach mightinclude:

• A systematic review of the proceduresinvolved in implementation ofinternational conventions governingthe hours of work/rest at sea;

• Verification by external authority thatprocedures are being implemented;

• Assessment of the suitability ofinternational conventions regardinghours of work/rest as they relate tothe Australian industry;

• On board measures of work schedulesinvolving numbers of hours workedand scheduled rest breaks; and

• On board monitoring of workschedules to assess the effect on directmeasures of physiological stress,fatigue and work performance.

10

RECOMMENDATION 2

Sleep/broken restA review of sleep issues in conjunction

with wider issues of hours of work and

rest between periods of duty.

The physical environment and the natureof living and working at sea means thatsome sleep disturbances are an inevitablepart of seafaring work in a 24 hourindustry. However, the present dataindicate employees, particularly thoseinvolved in watchkeeping and on callduties appear to be experiencingadditional stress from this aspect of theworkplace. The study indicated themajority of the maritime sample (70%)reported fair to poor to very poor qualitysleep (Section 5), and half the workforcereported less than 6 hours of sleep per dayat sea. In particular, ~96% of pilotsreported compromised sleep duration atsea. Those in the engineering groupappeared to experience considerabledemands from broken rest including beingwoken unexpectedly, being on call andunpredictable working hours (Section 9).

Results of Section 12 show sleep qualitywas the highest ranked of the factorscontributing to physical ill health amongseafarers. Comments from seafarerssupported the findings on sleep quality.For example, the highest percentage ofnegative comments about working at searelated to the quality of sleep. Given thefrequency of comments regardingdifficulties with on board professional andpersonal relationships, inadequate restcould be contributing to some of thesedifficulties. It should be noted however,that rest hours are applied in Australia as

prescribed by the InternationalConvention on Standards for Training and

Certification of Watchkeepers (1995).

Given the enormous environmental andeconomic consequences of shippingaccidents it is recommended that athorough examination of sleep patternsand their effect on work performance beconducted. Personnel involved inwatchkeeping and on call duties shouldbe a high priority in an examination ofsleep patterns.

This may be achieved by:

• A systematic review of proceduresinvolved in the implementation ofinternational conventions for restperiods at sea;

• Verification of implementation ofprocedures relating to internationalconventions by external authority;

• Analysis of retrospective sleep data;

• Examination of sleep hours using sleepdiaries and other measurementtechniques to investigate the extentand quality of sleep at sea and ashore;

• Evaluation of the physical environmenton board ships to determine factorsassociated with poor sleeping: (e.g.location and adequacy of sleepingaccommodation in relation to noisesources on the ship, soundproofing,heating and cooling); and

• Evaluation of the appropriateness ofinternational conventions regardinghours of rest as they relate to theAustralian industry. It would bedesirable to obtain on board measuresof specific work categories to examinethe cognitive and/or physiologicaldemands of the position and the effectssleep decrements have on workperformance.

11

RECOMMENDATION 3

Change in the industrySupport to help seafarers adjust to

industry change should focus on both

technical and emotional support systems.

A high priority should be to provide

training/retraining programs which build

on the skill level in the industry. In

addition, all support systems should

include appropriately qualified personnel.

When industry change occurs, steps tominimise the impact of major industryreforms have been shown to have a positiveeffect on workers and their workperformance. The relatively older ageprofile of the industry (Section 3) suggeststhat Australian seafarers may havedifficulty adjusting to industry change,particularly technological change. Thefindings indicated that 76% of all seafarersreported increased pressure from issuesassociated with change in the industry;crew members were slightly more affectedby change than other groups (Section 9).Moreover, change in the industry was thehighest ranked of the factors affecting mostaspects of job satisfaction. Seafarers’commentaries indicated that majorindustry reform involving uncertainty bothacross the industry and in the individualworkplace, was an additional source ofstress. Change has also impacted on thesocial environment at sea with fewerpersonnel on board, and therefore lesssocial interaction.

While it is recognised that somecompanies are providing educationalprograms to prepare employees forindustry changes, a systematic approachto strengthening and coordinating such

programs by all industry areas wouldsignificantly reduce stress associatedwith future industry change.


• Closer examination of manningarrangements particularly given thevariation in working conditions acrossthe Australian fleet;

• Appropriate training/retraining tobuild on the existing skills of theseafaring workforce, particularly whenchange involves technology;

• Appropriate training and managementof support labour groups used duringpeak periods of activity while in port;

• Appropriate training/retraining ofmanagerial staff (management andpersonnel training) at sea to cope withthe changes in a restructuredworkplace;

• Involvement of Maritime Collegeexpertise whenever possible in thetraining role;

• Publicise the availability of existingsupport systems within the industryfor both technical and emotionalsupport regarding industry change.

12

RECOMMENDATION 4

Home/work interfaceInterventions to minimise problemsassociated with the home/work interfaceshould utilise both social/emotionalstrategies and technological innovations.Social issues should involve theavailability of qualified personnel tocounsel families or seafarers with stressfrom the home/work interface, andpractical assistance to families ashore.Technological innovations providingaccess to advanced technology in thearea of ship/shore communication shouldbe adopted when available.

The home/work interface (i.e. theoverlap/transition between sea andashore), and the difficulties for all parties(seafarers and families) associated withthis aspect of seafaring have been welldocumented. The present investigationindicated that the home/work interfacewas the greatest source of work pressurefor the entire maritime sample, and foreach of the occupational groups (Section10). The present findings on this topicalso support previous maritime data onproblems experienced by seafarers withthe home/work interface.

In addition, the highest percentage ofnegative comments from seafarersrelating to industry-wide issues centredon difficulties with the home/workinterface. These comments providedinsight into the emotional and physicaldifficulties experienced by seafarers andtheir families as a consequence of the“home and away” nature of seafaringwork. The period when all parties appearmost vulnerable is immediately prior toleaving home and after returning fromsea. For example, one week before the

seafarer leaves home, tension in thehousehold builds, and a week is requiredfor all parties to adjust to the presence ofthe seafarer after he has returned home.Unresolved problems at home impact onwork performance, job satisfaction andstress levels at sea and vice versa.

Working and living away from home forextended periods is very much part ofseafaring work; however, strategies toreduce the associated stress from thissource should be implemented. It isunderstood that the availability of someadvancements in remote areacommunication will very much dependon the types of ships and sea areasworked. A point to note is that thereappears to be considerable awareness ofthe problems of the home/work interfaceby some companies, but many seafarersdo not appear to be taking advantage ofthis service. For instance, individualcompanies promote and fund supportgroups for spouses ashore and alsoencourage visits to ships by familieswhen convenient for all parties.

In addressing these issues the followingaspects should be considered:

• The transition period should be onemajor focus in addressing this issue;

• Increase awareness and promote therange of services available to seafarersand their families such as counselling,through the Seafarers’ AssistanceService;

• Increase awareness of new initiatives(support groups) being undertaken bycompanies in the area of reducingdifficulties with the home/workinterface for seafarers and theirfamilies;

13

• Investigation of support systemsavailable (e.g. Watch Ashore, UnitedKingdom) for overcoming problemswith the home/work interface in theinternational maritime industry orother home and away workingsituations;

• Explore suggestions from seafarers onreducing difficulties with the home/work interface including visits to shipsby families or occasional voyages byfamilies (when convenient for allparties), and the production of a videoof working and living at sea;

• Emergency communication should notbe the sole focus of advancements intechnology for remote area contact.

The industry should monitor progresswith advances in the broader use ofInternet/e-mail access for employeeson ships at sea. The internationalmaritime community has recognisedthe advantage of utilisingtechnological developments indistance communication. Currently,progress in technology to enableInternet access for ships is underinvestigation by the SeafarersInternational Research Centre, Cardiff.

• Closely monitor other technologicaladvances in remote areacommunication enablingcommunication similar to videoconferencing with those at home.

14

RECOMMENDATION 5

Environmental hardshipsA review of present practices relating to

the monitoring of the levels of noise,

heat, humidity and pollutants with a

view to reducing the effects of these

factors on occupational stress.

Long term exposure to excess levels ofenvironmental hardships is potentiallyharmful to physical health and impactson work performance. Environmentalhardships at sea are chiefly related tonoise, heat, humidity and pollutants. Bythe very nature of the differentoccupational tasks, some employeesreported suffering more than others fromthese aspects of the workplace. Healthprofiles (Section 4) indicated auditoryproblems are higher in engineers and, toa lesser degree, in crew members.Results of Section 9 support this findingindicating hardships at sea (includingnoise, heat and humidity) are a greaterproblem for engineers and crew thanothers. Miscellaneous comments fromseafarers also indicated that otherenvironmental problems at sea related topollutants and the lack of equipment tomonitor the levels. The commentsindicated a wide variation existed in thepresent attitude to environmentalhardships in the industry.

It is understood that the procedures inplace in the industry for addressingenvironmental hardships follow specificOccupational Health and Safetyguidelines. However, theimplementation of these guidelinesappears to be quite varied across theindustry. For this reason, a complete

organisational approach involving all keyparties is recommended whenaddressing this topic.


• On board measures to determine thepresent situation;

• Examination of the appropriateness ofexisting standards for 24 hour“capture” industries such as seafaring;

• Determination of most frequentlyencountered environmental hazards;

• Strict adherence to the level of medicalchecks to detect health problems fromthese environmental factors;

• Education of the health consequencesof long term exposure to these factors;

• Mandatory use of appropriateprotective equipment;

• Monitoring of the level ofenvironmental hazards, adheringstrictly to safe levels and exposuretime; and

• Adhering to guidelines regardingadjustment of work patterns for safeexposure.

15

SECONDARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

The secondary recommendations focus essentially on lifestylebehaviour such as exercise, relaxation, nutrition, smoking andalcohol consumption. Given the variation in facilities acrossships a systematic approach to the provision of minimumfacilities and promotion of their routine use applies torecommendations involving both exercise and relaxation.However, it is recognised that modern exercise and relaxationfacilities are supplied on a considerable number of the ships inthe Australian fleet (i.e. fully equipped gymnasiums,swimming pools, saunas, library, television, videos, compactdisk players, hobby room and comfortably appointed loungesto cater for the needs of individuals in these areas). Therefore,the following recommendations tend to focus on strategies toincrease awareness of long term health benefits of appropriatelifestyle behaviours. Specifically, these strategies would targetincreased participation in exercise and relaxation activities byutilising the wide range of available facilities.

16

RECOMMENDATION 1

ExerciseIt is recommended that strategies to

address this topic should target increased

participation in exercise and reinforce

participation in those who are already

exercising.

Positive long term health outcomesincluding a reduction of stress levels areclosely related to regular patterns ofexercise and relaxation. The home andaway nature of seafaring work placesadditional demands on being able toadopt regular exercise habits. Results inSection 5 show a very high number ofseafarers did not meet the National HeartFoundation guidelines for a prescriptionof exercise adequate for cardiovascularhealth while at sea or ashore. This ofcourse, may not be due to the lack ofsuitable facilities, but rather to the lack ofawareness of the important role of exercisein positive long term health outcomes.

Another important aspect of the exerciseissue is its role as a mediator of stresslevels. Although not shown in the report,an analysis of the use of stress copingstrategies by the present seafaring groupsshowed a greater use of passive strategies(smoking and drinking) rather than activestrategies (exercise) to cope with stress.However, some individual commentaryfrom seafarers highlighted that somepersonnel felt regular exercise at seaprovided a coping mechanism forworkplace stress.

Strategies for consideration include:

• Closer examination of exercise habitsfrom the present survey data inconjunction with an assessment ofexercise facilities, and theappropriateness of these in theAustralian fleet;

• Incorporation of an educationalapproach regarding exerciseawareness and associated healthbenefits; particularly the role ofexercise in coping with stress;

• Targeting increased participation;

• Reinforcing participation in thosealready exercising; and

• Developing and testing appropriatemodels of exercise programs suitablefor the maritime industry.

17

RECOMMENDATION 2

RelaxationIntervention strategies to improve the

time available for relaxation should be

incorporated with strategies to improve

sleeping habits

Sufficient time for daily relaxation isessential to ongoing work performanceand the management of stress. Results inSection 5 show the majority of theworkforce achieve between 1 and 3 hoursper day of relaxation. Individualcommentaries from seafarers indicatedan educational approach to relaxationaway from work (e.g. becomingcomputer literate, learning a particularskill/hobby) would be appreciated. Animportant issue is therefore optimisingthe quality and effectiveness ofrelaxation time and the utilisation of thewide range of existing facilities toprovide diversity of relaxation interests.


• A closer examination of the presentrelaxation habits (from the surveydata) in conjunction with an analysisof the relaxation activities available inthe Australian fleet;

• Incorporation of an educationalapproach regarding the health andwork benefits of some daily relaxationtime;

• Implementing a program whichtargets improving sleep andrelaxation; and

• Incorporation of an educational focus(e.g. computer literacy) in relaxationprograms using existing facilities.

RECOMMENDATION 3

NutritionReview nutrition habits at sea across

ships and voyages with a view to

correcting inappropriate consumption of

fat.

Healthy nutrition plays a vital role ingood health and optimal workperformance particularly in demandingenvironments. Working at sea involvestotal reliance on shipboard meals. Theresults in Section 6 indicate seafarersconsumed more fat and sugar at sea thanashore. In addition, maritime personnelperceived greater personal relevance ofnutrition to their lives than shore-basedgroups. These findings are supported bycomments from seafarers whichindicated a dissatisfaction with the largeamount of fried food at sea and theunavailability of low fat products onsome ships.

That there is a perceived level of stressassociated with this issue highlights theimportance of a more detailed analysis ofnutrition at sea, particularly across theships and types of voyages before thesignificance of personnel’s comments canbe fully assessed.


• Closer examination of nutrition acrossships and voyages (from the presentdata);

• Additional training for chefs in thepreparation of low fat meals; and

• Educational programs and nutritionalawareness.

18

RECOMMENDATION 4

Alcohol consumption and smokingReview effectiveness of current alcohol

policy. Provide educational

opportunities at sea on the negative

health consequences of smoking and

excess alcohol consumption. Implement

quit programs for alcohol and smoking

at sea.

Results of Section 7 indicated being atsea had both positive and negative effectson health-related behaviour. Forexample, the incidence and intensity ofalcohol consumption was lower when atsea than ashore. That approximatelytwice as many maritime personnelexceeded the National Heart Foundationsafe limits for alcohol consumptionashore compared with at sea, might be ofconcern and should be furtherinvestigated.

The smoking frequency amongstsmokers increased slightly while at sea.However, even ashore there was arelatively higher frequency of smokingamong maritime groups compared withAustralian population data. Given therelatively higher frequency of smokingamong the maritime sample, strategies toaddress this behaviour should beconsidered. The effects of such strategiesif implemented at sea would alsopotentially carry over to time ashore.


• An educational approach to thenegative health consequences of thesebehaviours; and

• Provision of access to quit programswhile at sea

The issues of exercise, relaxation, smokingand alcohol have been addressedseparately in the recommendations.However, if implemented there may be aninteractive effect; programs which targetan improvement in one area such asincreased exercise, may naturally carryover to better relaxation and improvedsleep and vise versa.

19

FUTURE RESEARCH

The recommendations indicated the needfor a number of broad reviews ofidentified issues. While not attempting topre-empt the outcome of such reviews, itis possible to identify a number ofspecific research projects which need tobe undertaken. In general, the proposedprojects would involve direct measuresof the physiological and psychologicaldemands of some identified sources ofstress such as work hours/rest breaksand sleep quality and duration, and theirrelationship to work performance. Whilesome of these projects relate specificallyto the Australian maritime industry,others could be undertaken ascollaborative research projects with otherinternational maritime research centres.

1. Hours of work and sleep

A research priority would be to examinehours of work and sleep patterns,particularly for those whose workinvolves watchkeeping and on callsituations. A focus on these occupationalgroups is important given the high levelof responsibility of these employees forthe safety of the ship. The work hoursand rest experienced whilst on board andthe effects of these on fatigue, stress andwork performance would be assessedthrough physiological and psychologicalmeasures. Additionally, on boardmeasures of the effects of sleep decrementon work performance would be assessed.

2. Sleep environment

Another priority area would be anexamination of the physical sleep

environment at sea. This study wouldinvolve a systematic on board assessmentof the physical sleep environment acrossships. The assessment would relate toissues such as location, soundproofing,heating and cooling. The objectives wouldbe to evaluate existing conditions acrossthe industry and to give direction for theoptimal design requirements of sleepingaccommodation in the Australian fleet.

3. Home/work interface

Investigation of the problems associatedwith the overlap between home andwork was also identified as a priorityarea for further research. The proposedstudy would involve a systematicexamination of the problems associatedwith this issue in the Australian industry.Specifically, it would focus on two issues:

(i) Methods of improving communica-tion between home and the ship; and

(ii) The role of support in minimising theimpact of this problem for seafarersand families. The study design wouldrequire input from seafarers and theirfamilies and would include an exami-nation of services currently availableto assist with this problem. Addition-ally, the design would also involve acomparative analysis of servicesavailable in other countries/industrieswhich attempt to minimise difficultiesassociated with the home and awayworkforce. The overall objectivewould be to improve existing servicesand develop new initiatives forminimising the impact of this problemin the Australian industry.

20

4. Longitudinal assessment ofcounselling needs

This study would involve a longitudinalinvestigation of the reasons for usingcounselling services by Australianseafarers. An examination of the numberof seafarers and families who seekcounselling, and the reasons for using theservice would provide data enabling thecauses of these problems to be addressed.

5. Environmental hardships

This investigation would involve on boardassessment of the physiological demandsof environmental hardships (e.g. heat andhumidity) and the effects of these on workperformance.

6. Exercise

This study would involve a review of theavailable exercise facilities and the use ofthese in the industry. It would include:

(i) An assessment of existing exercisefacilities across ships;

(ii) Closer examination of presentexercise habits (from the currentdata);

(iii) Needs assessment of seafarers;

(iv) A review of the literature relatingto the role of exercise in workperformance and stress levels;

(v) Examination of the barriers to theuse of existing exercise facilities(shiftwork, motivation);

(vi) The development and promotionof exercise programs at sea for theduration of a swing;

(vii) Testing the effectiveness of suchprograms across the duration of aswing on a number of ships; and

(viii) The development of programsspecific to the maritime industry,with special consideration to thedemands of shiftwork and thework environment.

7. Relaxation

The research would focus on enhancingthe quality of relaxation time of seafarers.This project would involve:

(i) Assessment of the time available forseafarers’ relaxation;

(ii) Examination of existing relaxationfacilities across ships;

(iii) Closer examination of the currentrelaxation habits (from the presentdata);

(iv) Review of the literature relating tothe role of relaxation in workperformance and stress management;and

(v) Promotion of effective use ofrelaxation time. This study should beimplemented in combination with thestudy examining exercise (6 above).

8. Nutrition

This study would involve directassessment of dietary habits across shipsand voyages. It would incorporatemeasures of dietary composition andchoice of foods available. The overallaim would be to promote healthy eating.

9. Interaction of factors

It is well known that accidents frequentlyresult from errors made when criticalcombinations of factors are simultaneouslypresent. Future studies should thereforepay special attention to situations in whichsuch factors as sleep loss, high stress, poorenvironmental conditions, and criticaltraffic conditions occur together.

21

SECTION 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Background to the project

Aims

Data collection

Questionnaire content

Overall data analysis strategy

22

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THEPROJECTMany countries, including Australia, haveincreased automation, reduced crew sizesand encouraged multi-skilling in anattempt to improve efficiency andcompetitiveness in international shipping.These changes have had major effects onthe physical and cultural environment onboard ships, including the nature of thework performed, work and leisurepatterns, interpersonal relations and homelife. It is also likely that some of thesechanges have impacted on the physicaland mental health of seafarers, and havecontributed to increased fatigue undercertain working conditions, particularlywhen shiftwork is involved.

Seafaring also provides a number ofunique work environments which inthemselves may be the source of healthproblems. Noise and vibration, and thecontinual rolling and pitching of the shipare constant problems, in addition to thepossible exposure to thermal stress andpollutants. A recent review of maritimestudies indicated environmental problemstogether with negative lifestyle practicessuch as smoking, poor nutrition andexcessive consumption of alcohol, may beassociated with health problems such asdepression, cardiovascular disease andcancer among seafarers (Parker et al.,1996).

Concern regarding the impact of majorreforms to improve efficiency andcompetitiveness in the Australianmaritime industry resulted in theAustralian Maritime Safety Authority(AMSA) initiating a project to investigatethe effects of these changes on the healthof Australian seafarers.

The Queensland University of Technologywas successful in its tender to undertake aproject which addressed the fatigue, stressand occupational health of seafarers,referred to as the FASTOH project. Theproject consisted of a number of phases:

Phase 1: A review of the existingliterature relating to the health,stress and fatigue of seafarers;

Phase 2: A survey designed to develop aprofile of the industry andidentify concerns with respectto the occupational health ofseafarers, and designed toidentify priority areas forfurther investigation in laterstages of the project;

Phase 3: Direct medical assessment ofthe cardiorespiratory status ofseafarers;

Phase 4: On board assessment of worktasks and physiological andperformance criteria associatedwith these tasks; and

Phase 5: Development of strategies tominimise and manage stressand fatigue.

A steering committee comprisingmembers of the unions, employers,AMSA and the research team wasestablished prior to the initiation of theproject. Briefly, the aim of the committeewas to facilitate communication betweenthe research team and participants in theproject, to provide industry specific inputinto the project, to monitor progress andto provide feedback to the research teamin each phase of the project.

23

the industry. The present report based onanalysis of the questionnaire representsPhase 2 of the project. As indicatedearlier, the results of the survey should beviewed in the larger context of theoriginal research proposal and serves to:

• Define the profile of the industry;

• Identify areas of concern with respectto the occupational health andsources of work stress of Australiaseafarers; and

• Determine some of the factorscontributing to the various sources ofstress.

As such this report provides a basis forthe more detailed analyses of priorityareas of concern either in the industry asa whole and/or in individualoccupational groups.

An overview of the aims and proceduresinvolved in Phase 2 of the project isshown in Table 1.0.

During the early stages of the project theresearch team experienced protracteddelays in attempting to negotiate accessto ships and participants for later stagesof the project. Considerable time wasalso involved in the development of asurvey instrument to adequately coverthe concerns expressed by the variousconstituents within the industry, and toestablish relatively complex datacollection procedures.

On the initiative of the steeringcommittee newsletters were produced ona regular basis and circulated to theindustry to promote the project and relateits progress. Final resolution of a numberof problems associated with theimplementation of the project with the co-operation of the key stakeholders wasachieved following a meeting of thesteering committee aboard the Spirit ofTasmania. This vessel is a passenger andvehicular ferry operating across BassStrait between the mainland of Australiaand Tasmania. At this meeting details ofthe project, including on boardmeasurement procedures were explained.Additionally, concerns regardingconfidentiality and implications of theresults of the project were discussed andgeneral support for the project tocontinue was achieved. In short, theefforts made across this time period bythe research team and other keystakeholders resulted in an excellentdegree of co-operation between allrepresentatives, and initiation of thesurvey in 1996.

To this point an extensive literature reviewcompleted in November 1995 has beenpublished and circulated to members of

24

Study Aims • To develop a profile of Australian seafarers to:

- determine the physical health status;

- determine the health and lifestyle behaviours (i.e. smoking,

drinking, exercise, sleep, stress, relaxation, nutrition, drug

use and awareness);

- determine the occupational stress levels; and

- highlight potential job/industry sectors requiring further

investigation.

Data Collection • Target groups:

- Pilots,

- Master/mates,

- Engineers and Crew;

• Distribution of a self administered questionnaire to groups using

mailing lists through union offices; and

• Reminder process: general reminders via the union network

and two individual reminders.

• Mailout sample size: 5080

Questionnaire • Demographic

- Industry, Age & Gender, Marital Status, Country of Birth

• Health and Lifestyle

- Health Status, Health behaviours at sea and ashore,

- Smoking, Sleep patterns, Stress, Relaxation, Nutrition, Drug

use and awareness

• Occupational Stress

- Sources on industry specific stress, work pressure and job

satisfaction; and

- Mental and physical ill health

• Miscellaneous Comments

- At Sea, Ashore

Overall Data • Estimation of the industry profile

• Comparison between industry and normative data

• Comparison between groups within the industry

• Ranking of issues within each occupational group within the

industry

• Factors contributing to occupational stress.

Table 1.0: Overview of Phase 2 of the project

Analysis Strategy

Content

25

SECTION 2

RESPONSE DETAILS

26

Crew 2853 680 23.8%

Masters/Mates 1060 524 49.4%

Engineers 1110 525 47.3%

Pilots 57 29 50.8%

Other * - 48 -

TOTAL 5080 1806 35.5%

Table 2.0: Number of questionnaires sent, responses received, responserates for four occupational groups.

* There were 48 respondents who did not specify their occupation and these have beenclassified as other.

# The response number was adjusted for the 130 questionnaires returned with addressunknown.

Response % = [1806 / (5080 - 130)] X 100.

NumberSent

Group Number ofResponses

ResponsePercent

Adjusted Response rate # 36.5%

27

A total of 1806 useable responses werereceived giving an overall response ratefor the industry of 36.5% (Table 2.0). Theoverall response rate has been calculatedbased on responses, returns with addressunknown, and those who indicated theydeclined to participate. Table 2.0 alsoshows the response rate for eachoccupational group (crew, masters/mates, engineers and pilots).

The present survey targeted 5080Australian seafarers and was the first toattempt to sample the whole Australian orany other maritime industry. The overallresponse rate of 36.5% was lower thanexpected. It is particularly exacerbated bythe low response from crew members(23.8%), which was considerably lowerthan the rate achieved in the other groups(~50%) (Table 2.0).

Generally, data analyses for the wholeindustry are based on the 1806 completedquestionnaires while occupational-groupcomparisons are based on theoccupational-group specific sample sizesgiven in Table 2.0. However; as is not anuncommon problem in survey-basedresearch involving a complexquestionnaire with multi-item scales,respondents do not necessarily providecomplete information. For the items andscales included in this report, no morethan 10% of respondents failed to answerany individual question. Therefore, thesample sizes for analyses in this reportare sometimes smaller than those givenin Table 2.0.

It is not expected that any potential biasassociated with such item non-responsewill significantly increase the overall bias

that might be present as a result of other

sources of error; particularly that arising

from the overall non-response and

differences in the occupational group

specific response rates. In the latter case

post-hoc weighting has been used to

ensure all occupational-groups are

represented in proportion to their

percentage in the industry.

Every attempt has been made to

minimise response bias. However, there

is always the possibility that some

respondents may have misunderstood

questions, or were unwilling to provide

accurate information. Always caution

should be exercised when interpreting

survey results.

Generally, data analyses for the whole

industry are based on the 1806 completed

questionnaires, while occupational-group

comparisons are based on the specific

sample sizes for each occupational group

(Table 2.0). Two surveys which examined

the smoking habits of enlisted navy

recruits showed response rates of 75%

(Burr, 1984) and 45.5%, respectively

(Cronan et al., 1991). The response rates

of the present pilots and officers were

comparable with the second of these

surveys. However, the present overall

response was slightly higher than the 32%

response to a mailed questionnaire to

offshore oil and gas personnel in Europe

(n=965; Sutherland & Cooper, 1991). It is

difficult to make direct comparisons with

other studies, as most investigations have

only targeted discrete groups rather than

an entire industry, and/or examined only

one topic such as smoking.

28

It is likely that the present response ratewas affected to some degree by thelength of the survey, the wide range ofeducational backgrounds within theindustry, and a level of apprehensionregarding confidentiality issues andimplications of the findings of the study.

In order to address the issue of thedifferent group response rates in theanalysis of overall responses, a statisticalprocedure (post-hoc weighting) wasapplied to ensure all groups were equallyrepresented in proportion to theirpercentage in the industry.

However, the different response ratesfrom the groups still impose a number of

limitations on the study which need to beconsidered in the interpretation ofresults. These include:

• The degree to which the samplerepresents the opinions of the totalpopulation;

• The relatively small number ofrespondents in some work categorieslimited detailed analysis of thesecategories; and

• Miscellaneous comments were entirelyvoluntary and it is possible that therespondents who provided these maynot properly represent the entirepopulation.

29

SECTION 3

INDUSTRY PROFILE -OCCUPATIONAL & DEMOGRAPHIC

Predominant sea area workedYears in the industryYears in current positionAgeGenderMarital statusHousehold incomeEducation levelCountry of birth

Miscellaneous comments

30

1 Level of statistical significance: ** = p < 0.01 *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significantdifference between the groups.

Table 3.0: Occupational history and industry experience for the entiremaritime sample and four occupational groups.

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

Crew

%

Engineers

%

Masters/Mates

%

VariablePilots

%

Total

%

Predominant sea area worked ***

**

**

Blue water 38.3 13.8 31.9 39.6 41.3

Coastal 37.1 86.2 32.0 34.3 39.7

Off-shore 24.6 0.0 36.1 26.1 19.0

Less than 4 4.9 3.4 0.8 3.0 7.7

4-9 16.5 0.0 14.9 16.6 17.3

10-19 28.5 3.4 28.6 24.8 30.8

20-29 26.0 17.4 28.6 32.8 21.9

30-39 17.9 37.9 19.5 20.7 15.4

40 or more 6.3 37.9 7.6 2.1 6.9

Less than 4 34.3 17.3 37.8 35.8 32.2

4-9 35.0 17.2 33.9 30.4 31.1

10-19 24.4 44.8 23.7 26.5 22.4

20-29 5.3 20.7 4.6 7.3 4.3

Years in industry

Years in present position

31

The following sections show the occupa-tional and demographic profiles of theentire sample taken from the Australianmaritime industry. The various workcategories within the industry arecombined into four-occupational groupswhich are contrasted in the presentationof results.

3.1 PREDOMINANT SEA AREAWORKEDData in Table 3.0 shows a similarpercentage of all respondents worked inthe blue and coastal water areas. Thelower percentage working in the offshoreregion was chiefly related to the absenceof pilots working in this area. Groupdifferences in the sea areas workedrevealed almost all pilots worked in thecoastal area, and a lower percentage ofcrew in the offshore area.

3.2 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRYNearly 25% of all respondents had beenin the industry for 30 years or longer, andover 50% had served in the industry formore than 20 years (Table 3.0).

In comparison to international shippingdata, a higher percentage of Australianseafarers remain in the industry longerthan 10 years. For instance, about 78% ofthe present respondents had been in theindustry for more than 10 years, whereasinternational data indicated only 12%remained at sea after the same period(Dyer-Smith and Stein, 1993). Althoughnot directly comparable with the resultsof the present survey, Sparks (1992)reported a sample of 93 Americanmasters/mates and pilots in the StateFerries System averaged 16 years ofservice in the industry.

A higher percentage of pilots than othershad been in the industry for 30 years ormore; 37% of this group had in fact beenin the industry for 40 or more years. Thepercentage of officers and crew servingmore than 30 years in the industry wassimilar. The higher percentage of pilotsserving 40 years or more in the industryis not unexpected given that pilots hadserved for many years in the industryprior to entering into marine pilotage.

Figure 3.0: Years of service in the industry for four occupational groups.

Pilots

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

Less than 10 years 10 - 30 years 30 years or more

Statistically significant difference between the groups, p<0.01

CrewEngineersMasters/Mates

32

Table 3.1: Demographic data for the entire maritime sample and fouroccupational groups.

Level ofStatistical

Significance

Crew

%

Engineers

%

Masters/Mates

%

Variable Pilots

%

Total

%

1Level of statistical significance: ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups.

Age categories (yrs) **

Less than 30 14.3 0.0 15.4 11.8 15.3

30-49 56.5 41.5 59.5 56.0 55.7

50-59 25.4 41.3 20.9 27.8 25.7

More than 60 3.8 17.2 4.2 4.4 3.3

Age (yrs) 42.6 52.6 41.5 43.7 42.3 ***Mean (SEM) (0.25) (1.7) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4)

Median 44 54 41 45 43 ***(Interquartile range 25-75) (34-51) (46-58) (33-50) (36-51) (33-51)

Gender **

Male 98.3 100.0 97.7 99.6 97.9

Female 1.7 0.0 2.3 0.4 2.1

Current marital status **

Married 57.1 86.2 61.7 65.5 50.4

Widowed 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.7

Separated 5.1 0.0 4.4 4.2 5.9

Divorced 6.9 3.4 4.9 5.7 8.4

Single 20.1 3.4 19.7 16.0 22.5

Defacto 10.3 6.9 8.6 8.2 12.1

Gross household income ($) **

Less than 40 000 9.4 3.6 5.4 4.8 13.5

40-80 000 71.8 60.7 56.8 66.3 81.6

80-120 000 16.9 21.4 33.7 26.6 4.5

More than 120 000 1.9 14.3 4.0 2.3 0.4

Highest Education level **

Primary school 4.8 0.0 0.8 0.6 8.7

High school 27.3 6.9 9.4 4.8 46.4

Technical/Maritime College 64.5 93.0 81.9 85.9 44.0

University 4.4 0.0 7.9 8.6 0.9

Country of birth **

Overseas

- English speaking 21.7 48.3 26.7 20.7 19.1

- Non English speaking 5.1 0.0 8.2 6.5 3.2

Australia 66.6 48.8 56.9 66.3 71.6

33

3.3 YEARS IN THE PRESENTPOSITIONThirty percent of all respondents hadbeen in their present position in theindustry for more than 10 years (Table3.0). A much higher percentage of pilotsthan other groups had served in theirpresent position for between 20 and 29years. This may be explained by thenature of the business; essentially thepilot group investigated were self-employed. In comparison, a sample of 93master/mates and pilots employed bythe State Ferries System in the US hadserved an average of 7 years in theirpresent working position (Sparks, 1992).

Demographic data covering age, gender,socio-economic status, level of educationand birthplace are shown in Table 3.1

3.4 AGEOver 80% of respondents were agedbetween 30 and 60 years; 14% were agedunder 30 years, with a small percentageover 60. The mean and median age ofrespondents was 42.6 and 44 years,respectively. The median age (44 years)

of the present sample (and of each group)was slightly higher than the median age(38.7 years) reported for internationalseafarers (Dyer-Smith and Stein, 1993).The older age profile of Australianseafarers is consistent with increasinglyolder age profiles shown for internationalseafarers between 1981 and 1988 (Dyer-Smith and Stein, 1993). The relativelyolder age profile of the Australianindustry is also a factor in implementingchange as older individuals quite oftenfind change, particularly technologicalchange, stressful (Legge et al., 1996).

There were significant differencesbetween the groups in the age profiles(Figure 3.1). Similar age profiles wereevident for master/mates, engineers andcrew with a high percentage in the 30-49year age category. In contrast, the profilefor pilots indicated a higher percentagein the 50-59 and the over 60 categories.Given the extensive amount ofexperience required prior to recruitmentto pilotage duties this finding is notunexpected. The average age for thepresent pilots (52.6 years) was slightlyhigher than data previously shown for

Figure 3.1: Age profiles of four occupational groups

Pilots Masters/Mates Engineers Crew

Less than 30 years 30 - 49 years 50 - 59 years


60 years or more

10%

20%

30%

40%

0%

50%

60%

70%

34

Port Phillip pilots (48.8 years; Berger,1984), UK pilots (49 years; Shipley, 1978)and American masters, masters andpilots (44 years; Sparks, 1992).

The relatively higher age profile of theAustralian seafarer may have implicationsfor the Australian industry. For example, areview of maritime studies indicated thatincreasing age was a factor for employeeswith respect to the impact of demanning,increased work schedules/hours andtolerance for shiftwork and fatigue(Parker et al., 1996).

3.5 GENDERRespondents to the survey were predomi-nantly male (98.3%) (Table 3.1). The lowpercentage of females reflects the lownumber of females in the Australianmaritime industry (currently estimated at150) and demonstrates that relatively fewwomen are attracted to the industry. Thelow percentage of females in the Austral-ian industry is consistent with Americandata indicating ~4% of a sample of 93masters, mates and pilots in the StateFerries System were female (Sparks, 1992).

3.6 CURRENT MARITAL STATUSTable 3.1 shows the majority (67%) of thesample are currently married or in adefacto relationship. Twenty percent ofrespondents were single and nearly 7%divorced.

Fifty-seven percent of the maritimesample were currently married (Table 3.1),a figure which is the same as data fromthe Australian population (ABS, 1995)showing 57% of Australian males aremarried. The percentage of singleseafarers is somewhat lower thanAustralian population data showing 30%of males are single (ABS, 1995).

Anecdotal and other evidence (Foster andCacioppe, 1986; Berger, 1983b) from the

Australian maritime industry suggeststhe seafaring life contributes heavily tomarriage breakdown. The percentage ofall respondents who were divorced didnot substantially differ from the generalpopulation data which indicates that 6.3%of Australians are divorced (ABS, 1995).However, the present survey requestscurrent marital status; whereas variationsin the wording of other surveys whichmay include previous and/or presentmarital status may account for some ofthe differences in reported divorce rates.Therefore, the possibility exists that themarital status of the present seafarersmay be an under estimation of the situa-tion if previous as well as current maritalstatus has been investigated.

Within the industry, there were significantdifferences between the groups in maritalstatus. Compared with other groups, aslightly higher percentage of crew wereeither divorced or single; a higher percent-age of pilots were married (Figure 3.2).

In comparison with other maritime data, alower percentage of Australian seafarerswere divorced. For example, 10 and 25percent of a London sub-sample (Shipley,1978) and Port Phillip pilots (Berger, 1983b)respectively were divorced, in contrast with3.4% of the pilot group in the presentsurvey. The variations in wording betweenstudies, as mentioned above needs to beconsidered in the interpretation of this data.

Positive family life appears to play animportant role in seafaring work. Forexample, negative comments from seafar-ers highlighted unsatisfactory personalrelationships ashore as an additionalsource of stress while working at sea. Incontrast, positive relationships with wives,partners and families played an importantrole in reducing stress associated with thehome and away nature of seafaring work.Other positive comments indicated

35

seafarers enjoy the time ashore with wivesand family members, and work hard atensuring that quality time is enjoyed bythe entire family.

Married seafarers have tended to be thefocus of the difficulty with relationshipsashore. However, single seafarers havealso indicated a level of stress associatedwith forming and keeping satisfactoryfriendships and relationships ashore.

3.7 GROSS HOUSEHOLDINCOMEThe majority (71%) of respondentsreported a total yearly household incomebetween $40-80,000 (Table 3.1). Thisplaces Australian seafarers in the higherincome bracket for gross householdincome for Australians (ABS, 1996).There were significant group differencesin gross household income. For instance,a much higher percentage of crew thanother groups reported receiving less than$40,000 and between $40-80000; whereas a

much higher percentage of pilots andofficers reported an annual householdincome of more than $80,000. Grosshousehold income may have reflectedincome from seafaring work and any othersources of income such as investments orpartners salary. Caution is recommendedwhen analysing income data given thesensitive nature of this issue.

3.8 HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVELOver 60% of respondents were educatedto technical or maritime college level. Incomparison, 42% of the Australianpopulation (ABS, 1993) held post-schoolqualifications. The higher percentage ofmaritime personnel reporting post-schooleducation may reflect the requirements ofa highly skilled and adaptable workforcewithin this industry.

There were significant differencesbetween the educational backgrounds ofthe occupational groups which reflectedthe technical work demands at sea. For

Figure 3.2: Current marital status for four occupational groups.

Pilots Masters/Mates Engineers Crew0%

Married Separated Divorced


Single

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Defacto

36

PART A

HEALTH AND LIFESTYLE

example, over 80% of masters/mates,engineers and pilots were educated to thelevel of technical or maritime college; incontrast 44% of crew had received thistype of training (Table 3.1). It should benoted that no attempt was made todifferentiate between the different typesof tertiary education (e.g. certificate,associate or advanced diploma ordegree). Data relating to the percentage ofcrew reporting technical/maritimecollege training should also beinterpreted cautiously, as all crewmembers underwent 9-11 weeks of re-training at the Australian MaritimeCollege between the period of 1986-1994.It is possible some respondents may haveincluded this in their replies to thequestions on the educational background.

Comments from seafarers suggested therewere difficulties in undertaking additionaleducational courses given the home andaway nature of seafaring work. It ispossible that particular institutions maybe able to accommodate seafarers, withmore programs now being offeredthrough flexible delivery methods.

3.9 COUNTRY OF BIRTHAustralian born respondents comprised66% of the sample, ~21% were bornoverseas in English speaking countrieswith less than 10% born overseas in non-English speaking countries (Table 3.1).There were differences between thegroups in the country of birth; notably ahigher percentage of crew members thanother groups were of Australian birth.

An overview of the demographiccharacteristics of Australian seafarers isshown in Figure 3.3.

3.10 SUMMARYIndustry data based on the years ofservice in the industry and years inpresent working position indicateAustralian seafarers exhibit a high degreeof stability within their occupation. Thedemographic results shows theAustralian maritime industry tocomprise an older, almost totally maleworkforce, two-thirds of whom aremarried or in defacto relationships. Therespondents are primarily of Australianbirth, with a large percentage educated tothe level of technical or maritime college.

Figure 3.3: Demographic profile of Australian seafarers.

Age more than30 years

Married/Defacto Technical/MaritimeCollege

Australian Born

10%

20%

30%

40%

0%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

39

SECTION 4

HEALTH STATUS

No diagnosed illnesses

History of hospitalisation (within the last 10 years)

Medications taken

Family history of disease

Cholesterol levels

Medical conditions causing permanent restriction


40

Variable

Table 4.0: Self-reported health status for the entire maritime sample and fouroccupational groups.

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

Crew

%

Engineers

%

Masters/Mates

%

Pilots

%

Total

%

No diagnosedillness 45.3 51.7 51.7 40.4 44.4 ns

Heart disease 3.9 6.9 2.9 2.3 5.0 ns

Blood pressureabnormalities 14.3 17.2 11.8 16.7 14.2 ns

Lung disease 8.3 0.0 9.2 7.2 8.7 ns

Auditory disease 17.0 6.9 9.9 26.8 16.0 **

Psychiatricproblems 2.8 0.0 1.9 1.5 3.8 ns

Hospitalisation 46.0 41.4 42.2 42.8 49.5 ns

Medication 26.1 31.0 23.2 27.0 26.7 ns

Family historyof CVD 14.8 6.9 13.4 16.4 14.8 ns

Cholesterol higherthan 5.5 mmol/l 10.5 25.9 9.3 13.2 9.4 ns

Permanentrestriction onactivity 8.0 3.6 4.9 6.4 10.3 **

1 Level of statistical significance: ** = p < 0.01, represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significant at p < 0.01 level.CVD = Cardiovascular disease.

41

Results of self-reported health status forthe entire maritime sample and theoccupational groups (adjusted fordifferences in employee age) are shownin Table 4.0. When interpreting self-reported health data the followingissues should be considered: men tendto under utilise the health services, andindividuals are concerned regardingimplications of negative health profilesin job security.

The selection of medical conditionssurveyed in the present study isconsistent with previous populationstudies attempting to determine thelevel of disease and associated riskfactors in Australian populations(National Heart Foundation, 1989;National Heart Foundation, 1996). Inaddition medical conditions associatedwith occupational risk are included.

In an attempt to develop a health profile ofAustralian seafarers comparisons withother maritime data have been made wherepossible. It is recognised that existing data,in some instances, is quite dated anddistinct differences in occupationalconditions between the comparison groupsmay exist. For instance, the workcircumstances of Port Phillip sea pilots aremarkedly different from the present pilotgroup. Despite these limitations, bycontrasting groups within the sameindustry who experience common elementsin their work tasks, trends particular tooccupational groups may be identified.

With the exception of auditory disease andpermanent restriction on activity, occupa-tional groups exhibited similar self-re-ported health profiles. A selection of self-reported conditions by the occupationalgroups is shown in Figure 4.0.

Figure 4.0: Selection of self-reported medical conditions for the entire sampleand four occupational groups.

10%

20%

30%

40%

0%

50%

60%

No illness Heart disease Blood pressure Auditory

Pilots Masters/Mates Engineers

** = Statistically significant difference between the groups, p < 0.01.

Crew All

**

42

4.1 NO DIAGNOSED ILLNESSAs shown in Table 4.0, 45% of allrespondents reported no diagnosedillnesses. This was similar to self-reportednormative Australian population data inwhich 41% of males reported no illness(ABS, 1992). Group percentages for beingfree of illness were lower in engineersand crew, and higher in pilots andmasters/mates.

4.2 HEART DISEASEApproximately 4% of all respondentsreported having some form of heartdisease (Table 4.0). This percentage wassimilar to Australian normative data formales (3.8%: ABS, 1992) and a group ofPolish seafarers in which 3% werereported to be suffering from heartdisease (Filikowski, 1989). As the presentlevel of heart disease is self-reported, it isdifficult to compare with some maritimestudies which have reported dataderived from direct measures of heartstatus. For example, Jinzhong (1991)reported 20% of Chinese seafarersshowed abnormal electrocardiogramsindicative of heart disease. A higherpercentage of pilots and crew than othergroups in the present sample reportedheart disease (Figure 4.0).

For some seafaring groups, comparisonsof the incidence of heart disease withother maritime groups are possible. Forexample, the percentage of pilots (6.9%)reporting heart disease was much lowerthan the figures shown by Berger (1983b),indicating that between 1963 and 1983,50% of Melbourne pilots were sufferingfrom some form of heart disease severeenough to force their retirement. Again,differences in data collection procedures(direct measures vs self report) makedirect comparisons difficult.

4.3 BLOOD PRESSUREABNORMALITIESFourteen per cent of respondents sufferedfrom blood pressure abnormalities (Table4.0). This figure is slightly higher thannormative data for Australians (ABS, 1992)which showed that 10.5% of all malessuffer from elevated blood pressure. InAustralian males over 44 years, however,the figure increased to 22% and sinceapproximately 30% of the current samplewere over 50 years of age, blood pressurecomparisons with older age categories aremore appropriate.

There is evidence to suggest that engineroom employees are more likely to sufferfrom hypertension due to noise exposure(Vukelic et al., 1989). In the present study,however, the percentage of engineersreporting blood pressure abnormalitiesdid not significantly differ from othergroups (Table 4.0). The percentage ofpilots reporting elevated blood pressurewas similar to the figure for Port PhillipPilots (15%) (Berger, 1983b) but lower thanthat reported by 93 American masters,mates and pilots working in the StateFerries System (21%) (Sparks, 1992).

4.4 LUNG DISEASELess than 10% of the entire samplereported suffering from lung disease(Table 4.0). This is considerably lowerthan the Australian Bureau of Statistics(1992) data showing 33% of respondentsfrom professional and trades occupationsreported some form of lung disease.

Reported lung disease was similar(differences were borderline in statisticalsignificance) in the four occupationalgroups. Notably, no pilots reported lungdisease and a considerably lowerpercentage of pilots than other groupscurrently smoked (Section 5). Since a

43

substantially higher percentage of crewmembers smoked (Section 5) the absenceof a correspondingly higher incidence oflung disease in this group is surprising.

Some maritime reports indicate anoccupational risk of cancer in seafarers(respiratory cancer being twice that ofnon-seafarers) (Kelman & Kavaler, 1990);however, the present self-reported data forlung disease did not support this finding.

Despite the findings above, commentsfrom some respondents raised concernover bronchial problems related toexposure to pollutants such as dust,exhaust fumes, asbestos, mineral fibrechemicals, charcoal ash, bulk cement andoil mist. However, it should be notedcertain bronchial ailments relating to airquality can be precursors to the develop-ment of significant disease states later inlife. Often these conditions are onlydetected by direct measurement duringthe early phases of disease development.

4.5 AUDITORY DISEASESeventeen percent of all respondentsreported auditory disease, with signifi-cant differences in this disease betweenthe occupational groups. Hearing losshas been shown to be the second mostcommon disability in Australia, with thetwo most prevalent causes being agingand workplace noise (Waugh, 1991). Infact, among Australian males who re-ported suffering from hearing impair-ment, ~40% indicated working conditionswere the main underlying cause (ABS,1993). A similar trend has been shown inmaritime data with the increased healthhazards of exposure to excessive noiselevels previously reported in a review ofmaritime studies (Parker et al., 1996).The higher percentage of engineers

reporting auditory problems is consistentwith an Australian study of marine andpower engineers (Munnerly et al., 1992)which found that 75% of participantshad hearing problems (a combination ofself-report and direct measures). Theseresearchers found that ninety percent ofhearing problems were associated withextended exposure to hazardous noiseand increasing with age and years at sea.The incidence of auditory problemsamong crew members was similar to thepercentage shown for all seafarers in thecurrent study (Table 4.0). Given the olderage profile of the Australian industry it ispossible that some of the reportedauditory problems may relate to hearingdegeneration incurred prior to themandatory use of safety equipment suchas ear muffs.

Since modern ships are virtually floatingfactories, seafarers are subjected to typicalfactory conditions and many respondentsindicated that while working and living atsea some degree of constant noise was anaccepted part of the environment.However, the noise problem is worsenedwhen sleeping accommodation is placedclose to large noise sources on the ship, orwhen soundproofing is inadequate.Additional comments on noise problemsare shown in Appendix 7.

4.6 PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMSTable 4.0 shows that 3% of the entiresample reported suffering some form ofpsychiatric problem. This percentage issimilar to the 2.6 % of Australian malesreporting disorders of the nervous/emotional system (ABS, 1989-90), butlower than the figure of ~15% reportedby Polish maritime industry personnel(Nitka, 1989).

44

Other maritime evidence suggests thedevelopment of neurosis is a majorhealth problem in seafarers, and appearsto be related to time spent in the industryrather than age of sufferers (Filikowski,1989). In fact, a study by Tomaszunas &Mroziski (1990) found that amongseafarers repatriated from ships, mentaldisorders and diseases of the nervoussystem were the second most prevalentcause of repatriation, behind diseases ofthe circulatory system.

Previous comments (at the beginning ofthis section) regarding the limitations ofself-report health data may be moreapplicable to psychiatric disease thansome other conditions. These limitationsshould be heeded when considering therelatively small percentage of the presentsample reporting psychiatric problems.

4.7 HOSPITALISATIONForty six percent of all respondentsreported being hospitalised within thelast 10 years. The history of hospitalisa-tion was consistent across the groupswith a similar percentage of all groups(range 41-49%) reporting hospitalisationwithin this period. Almost half the crewmembers reported being hospitalisedduring a ten year period. This findingsuggests that closer examination of theresponses to this question could bewarranted to determine the causes ofhospitalisation (i.e. accident or illness).

Direct comparisons of hospitalisation datawith other population research is difficultdue to different time periods invoked forreporting the data. For example, 13.7% ofthe Australian population reported one ormore hospital episodes during a 12 monthperiod (ABS, 1991). Maritime data shows

that 11% of a sample of American seafarershad been hospitalised during a six-monthperiod (Sparks, 1992).

4.8 MEDICATIONSome form of medication was taken by26% of the respondents with the rangeextending from 23% for masters/mates to31% for pilots. While the data did notdifferentiate between the types ofmedication used, it is possible that theywere associated with the treatment ofblood pressure or sleep problems as thesewere more prevalent in the maritimepopulation. Australian normative data(ABS, 1991) indicates that 64.5% ofAustralian adult use some form ofmedication. However, direct comparisonwith that reported in this investigation isdifficult as the ABS data also includesvitamins and mineral supplements.

4.9 FAMILY HISTORY OF CARDIO-VASCULAR DISEASE (CVD)Approximately 15% of all seafarersreported a history of CVD in theirimmediate family. This percentage wassimilar for all groups, with a slightlyhigher number of pilots reporting a familyhistory of CVD.

4.10 CHOLESTEROL > 5.5 MMOL/LCholesterol levels higher than 5.5 mmol/lwere reported by 10% of the entiresample. This percentage is considerablylower than that reported for Australianmales, which indicated that 47% hadmeasured cholesterol levels above thisfigure (NHF, 1989). Figures for Americanmerchant seamen have shown that 37% ofthe seamen had measured cholesterolabove this level (Brown, 1990). Thisdiscrepancy in results may reflect

45

differences between self-report (presentstudy) and direct measures of cholesterol.

Comparison of the different occupationalgroups on this measure indicated that thepercentage of pilots reporting highercholesterol levels (26%) was higher thanfor other groups (borderline statisticalsignificance) but lower than that reportedfor Port Phillip pilots (46%) (Berger, 1984)

Relevant health concerns of some seafarersrelated to the lack of direct control overshipboard meals and respondents raisedconcern over the large amount of friedfood and the absence of low-fat productson some ships.

4.11 PERMANENTRESTRICTION ON ACTIVITYIn this case, permanent restriction onactivity is defined as a medical condition(including surgery) for which a doctor hasrecommended some permanent restrictionon activity. Restriction on activity wasreported by 8% of the survey sample andsignificant differences were foundbetween the groups. A higher percentageof crew members than others reportedsome permanent restriction on activity.Since this group may have been involvedin relatively more physical work in a veryunsteady working environment, it ispossible that restriction on activity mayrelate to problems in the lower extremities(knees and ankles) and lumbar spine.Torner and co-workers (1994) indicatedthe motions of pitching and rolling onboard ships are very much counteractedby motions of the lower extremities thusincreasing the strain in these parts of thebody. Additionally, individuals who arecolour blind are restricted fromperforming lookout duties. Further

analysis would be required to show thecauses of activity restriction. Additionallythe percentage of seafarers reportingpermanent restriction on activity may alsoquestion the effectiveness ofrehabilitation programs following injury.

A recent unpublished report (Patel andWickramatillake, 1997) analysed theincidence of disease and injurydiagnosed at sea or at ports of call amongAustralian seafarers between 1986 and1996. Direct comparisons with thepresent study are not possible given thedifferent methods of data collection.However, the authors indicated inAustralian seafarers over a 10 yearperiod, over 50% of the diagnoseddiseases were either musculo-skeletal(27%) or respiratory (26%). Digestivesystem (16%) and infectious diseases(12%) were the next most prevalentlydiagnosed problems.

4.12 SUMMARYBlood pressure was the only cardio-vascular disease risk factor which washigher than Australian normative data.Compared with other maritime dataAustralian seafarers generally displayedbetter health profiles. However, someissues such as the type of medicationbeing taken and the causes of hospitalisa-tion warrant further examination. Theoccurrence of auditory problems inengineers is consistent with findings fromprevious maritime studies. Although thiscondition is a common problem forengineers, strict implementation ofguidelines for exposure to noise levels inindustry would impact on the incidenceof auditory problems.

47

SECTION 5

HEALTH-RELATED BEHAVIOUR ANDSTRESS AT SEA

Smoking

Drinking

Exercise

Sleep

Relaxation

Stress


48

Smoking

Smokers (%) 28.3 10.3 20.1 17.8 37.3 ***

No of cigarettes per day[Mean (SEM)] 20.2 (0.6) 15.6 (4.7) 18.4 (1.3) 17.1 (1.1) 21.3 (0.8) ns

Drinking Alcohol

Drinkers (%) 52.2 6.9 42.9 58.0 54.7 ***

Drinking days per week ns

< 5 74.2 100.0 77.3 68.9 75.5

5 or more 25.8 0.0 22.7 31.1 24.5

Drinks per day ***

1-2 41.8 50.0 71.7 53.2 25.2

3 or more 58.2 50.0 28.3 46.8 74.8

NHF Guidelines a

Exceeds NHFguidelines foralcohol (%) 31.7 3.4 13.4 29.9 41.6 ***

Aerobic Exercise

Does not meet NHF recommended levels (%)b 81.5 72.4 79.0 89.3 79.5 ***

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

CrewEngineersMasters/MatesVariable PilotsTotal

Table 5.0: Health-related behaviour at sea for the entire maritime sample and fouroccupational groups.

1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significantly different atp < 0.01 level.

a= NHF (National Heart Foundation) guidelines for alcohol consumption = 1-2 standard drinksper day with at least 2 days per week alcohol free. This was calculated from the number ofdrinkers per day, and the number of drinking days per week in questionnaire responses.

Instructions were provided in the questionnaire describing standard drinks.

b= NHF (National Heart Foundation) guidelines for exercise prescription for health and general;that is, moderate intensity aerobic type activity (e.g., running, jogging, cycling, aerobics), 3 ormore times per week for a duration of 20 minutes or more. This was calculated from the

number of exercise sessions per week and the duration of exercise sessions.

49

5.1 SMOKINGApproximately 28% of maritime personnelwere regular smokers, which is slightlyhigher than the incidence (~24-26%)amongst Australian men (NHF, 1989; ABS,1989-90) (Table 5.0). This relatively higherincidence of smoking was primarily due tothe high incidence amongst crew (37%)(Figure 5.0). The percentage of smokersamong crew was similar to Port Philippilots (33%) surveyed more than 10 yearsago; whereas the incidence in theremaining groups was lower than thenational average for men. Compared withthe smoking incidence amongst Polish(40%; Tomaszewski et al., 1990) andChinese seafarers (80%; Jinghong, 1991) aswell as American navy personnel (50%;Cronan et al., 1991), the incidenceamongst the present Australian maritimepopulation is very low; it is, however,comparable to the incidence of smokingamong American masters, mates andpilots (29%; Sparks, 1992). The number ofcigarettes smoked per day (20.2) was

slightly higher in the entire maritimegroup compared with other Australianmales (18 per day; NHF, 1989). Thisrelatively higher frequency was, again,due to crew who smoked more frequentlythan the remaining groups (Table 5.0).Individual comments raised concern aboutthe discomfort associated with exposure tohigh levels of passive smoke in certainenclosed work areas (e.g. wheelhouse).Hence, consideration to further enforcedesignated non-smoking zones mayenhance the working environment.

Despite the slight differences in bothsmoking incidence and frequency betweenthe crew and remaining groups, crew donot self-report a higher incidence ofcardiovascular or lung disease (Table 4.0).This suggests that the health impact ofthese differences may not be clinicallysignificant at the present time; however,objective testing of lung function wouldenable early signs of disease to bedetected.


10%

20%

0%

30%

40%

Figure 5.0: Percentage of smokers at sea for the entire maritime sample andfour occupational groups.

Statistically significant difference between the groups, p < 0.001.

All NHF ~ 24% ABS ~ 26%

50

5.2 DRINKING ALCOHOLOver half the maritime personnel reporteddrinking alcohol at sea, with significantdifferences in drinking incidence betweenthe maritime groups (Table 5.0). Theincidence of drinking in Australian seafar-ers is comparable to a figure indicating51% of a sample of American masters,mates and pilots (n=93) drank alcoholwhile working at sea (Sparks, 1992).

In the present sample, the incidence ofdrinking was higher in engineers and crewcompared with masters/mates and, inparticular, the pilots (Table 5.0). Approxi-mately 32% of all maritime personnelexceeded the safe limits of alcohol con-sumption recommended by the NationalHeart Foundation (1989). Again, a rela-tively higher proportion of both crew and,to a lesser extent, engineers exceeded theserecommended limits (Figure 5.1). This isconsistent with the finding that relativelymore crew who drank consumed three ormore drinks per day, as opposed to a


10%

20%

0%

30%

40%

All NHF ~ 24% ABS ~ 26%


50%

60%

relatively lower incidence of high fre-quency drinking amongst those whoconsumed alcohol in the other groups(Table 5.0).

Comparative data on alcohol consumptionin other occupational groups is lacking.However, drinking and smoking are ‘social’behaviours. That they are both relativelyhigher in incidence and frequency amongstcrew is consistent with the relaxationhabits reported for the occupational groups(see Table 5.1). The relatively low fre-quency of drinking amongst pilots is alsoconsistent with the relatively short periodsthey spend relaxing at sea and the on callnature of a pilot’s work while on the ship.Given that many respondents indicated aneed for “quit” drinking and smokingprograms, further data analysis would berequired to determine if such programs arewarranted. If so, targeting “social” time atsea might be one strategy by which toattempt to reduce smoking and/or drink-ing in maritime personnel.

Figure 5.1. The percentage of drinkers who exceed the National HeartFoundation guidelines for alcohol consumption at sea for the entire maritimesample and four occupational groups.

51

Figure 5.2: Percentage of the entire maritime sample and four occupationalgroups who do not meet NHF guidelines for exercise at sea.



5.3 AEROBIC EXERCISEAerobic exercise includes activities such aswalking, jogging, cycling or swimming.Alternative types of exercise, such asweight lifting, were not included in thedata represented in Table 5.0. To achievethe levels of aerobic exercise that appear toexert a significant and positive effect oncardiovascular and respiratory health, theNational Heart Foundation (1989) haspublished guidelines that establishminimal levels for exercise intensity,duration and frequency. Approximately81% of maritime personnel failed to reachthese minimum exercise levels requiredfor good health and cardiorespiratoryfitness (Figure 5.2) (NHF, 1989). This figureis higher than the statistic reported forAustralian men on shore (i.e. ~70%: NHF,1989) Miscellaneous responses indicatedthat exercise facilities varied considerablyacross ships, ranging from excellent toeither inappropriate or non-existent.

Improving inadequate exercise facilities onships and increasing access to these facilitieswould help maintain exercise behavioursadopted ashore, and perhaps encourageless active personnel to be more active.

There were significant differences betweenthe groups, with relatively poorer exercisehabits in engineers compared with crew,masters/mates and, in particular, pilots(Figure 5.2). This discrepancy might berelated to the perception by engineers,obtained from miscellaneous comments,that they undertake enough exercise ‘whileworking’, and that exposure to heat andhumidity in the engine room makes themless inclined to pursue additional exercise.Such perceptions, together with aconsideration of other health-relatedbehaviour, should inform judgementconcerning strategies that might beimplemented to encourage a healthierapproach to working and living at sea.

10%

20%

0%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

All

52

1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01 represents a statisticallysignificant difference between the groups.

X Age adjustment was not permitted due to the skewed distribution of responses in some groups

Table 5.1: Sleep, stress and relaxation at sea in the entire maritime sample andfour occupational groups.

Very poor-poor 27.5 31.0 24.4 30.3 27.7

Fair 42.3 24.2 41.7 43.8 42.1

Good-very good 30.2 44.8 33.9 25.9 30.2

Less than 4 2.2 30.7 1.3 1.5 2.2

4-6 47.9 65.5 49.6 45.6 47.9

7-8 46.8 3.8 48.7 50.3 45.7

More than 8 3.3 1.0 0.4 2.6 4.2

0 4.6 50.0 7.9 4.2 2.2

1-3 80.4 50.0 87.5 85.4 75.5

4-7 14.5 0.0 4.6 10.4 21.4

More than 7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

Never 9.3 20.7 4.8 5.4 13.0

Occasional 61.5 68.9 65.0 57.7 61.5

Frequent 23.7 10.3 25.4 31.5 19.6

Constant 5.5 0.1 4.8 5.4 5.9

Mild 39.9 60.8 38.1 32.6 42.1

Moderate 49.4 21.7 51.4 54.9 44.6

High 10.7 17.5 10.5 12.5 13.3

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

Crew

%

Engineers

%

Masters/Mates

%Variable

Pilots

%

Total

%

Sleep quality ** X

Hours of daily sleep *** X

Hours of daily relaxation *** X

*** X

Level of stress *** X

Frequency of stress

53

5.4 SLEEPAs revealed in Table 5.1, approximately30% of the entire maritime samplereported the quality of their sleep at seawas good; whereas the majority of thesample (~70%) reported that their sleepquality was either fair or poor-very poor(Figure 5.3). Given that sleep at sea isassociated with many factors such as noiseand vibration from engines, generators,airconditioning and ventilation units(Osler, 1997; Parkes, 1994), this finding isnot unexpected, and raises question aboutthe suitability of current noise standardsfor the accommodation areas of ships. Theincidence of poor sleep quality in theentire sample (~28%) is consistent withother reports of poor sleep qualityamongst UK (30%; Shipley, 1978) and PortPhilip pilots (25%; Berger, 1983b). Thesecomparisons suggest that the relativelyhigh incidence of poor sleep quality inseafaring personnel is not solelylimited to the Australianindustry.

Both pilots and engineersreported a slightly higherincidence of poor sleep qualitycompared with crew andmasters/mates. This may beattributable to the fact that bothof the former groups areinvolved in on call duties whileat sea. Apprehension associatedwith being on call has beenreported as reducing perceivedsleep quality (Torsvall et al., 1987;Torsvall & Akerstedt, 1988).

Even in the presence of goodsleep quality, insufficientduration of sleep could lead to aprogressive accumulation offatigue (Krueger, 1989). Themajority of the entire sample (i.e.

~95%) received either 4-6 or 7-8 hourssleep per day. However, there weresignificant differences between groups.Approximately 30% of pilots received lessthan 4 hours sleep per day (Figure 5.4),while a further 65% reported between 4and 6 hours. These differences reflect theon board nature of pilotage duties. Pilotsare required to be on call at all times whileat sea, and the hours of sleep experiencedare dependent upon such factors as:weather conditions, shipping trafficdensity, reliability of the bridge team andthe ship’s equipment. Furthermore, pilotssleep may be compromised between workassignments due to time spent travellingto the next assignment, and the varyingstandards of sleeping accommodation insome remote areas while ashore.

Inadequate amounts of sleep have beenlinked with performance decrements,mood deterioration, and fatigue (Bohnen

Pilots Masters/Mates

Engineers Crew

10%

0%

Figure 5.3: Percentage of the entire maritimesample and four occupational groups reportingfair-poor-very poor quality sleep at sea.

All

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

54

& Gaillard, 1994; Haslam, 1982; Krueger,1989) which in turn increase the risk oferrors and/or accidents (Krueger, 1989).Given the enormous economic andenvironmental consequences associatedwith shipping accidents, the impact ofreduced sleep on work performancerequires close scrutiny across the industry.

There is some evidence that even themoderate levels of sleep received by mostof the maritime sample (i.e. 4-6 hours pernight) (Table 5.1) could be detrimental toperformance and mood. Naitoh (1976)described the concept of personal indi-vidualised sleep barriers. This barrierrepresents the absolute minimum amountof sleep an individual can function onwithout impairment. If sleep duration isless than this barrier, an accumulated sleepdeficit is incurred (Naitoh, 1976; Tilley etal., 1982) and adverse effects (previouslydescribed) may be experienced. Addition-ally, poor quality sleep compounds thesleep decrements (Krueger, 1989). As aconsequence, safety within the workplacemay be seriously jeopardised (Tilley et al.,1982).

The impact of, and reasons for, themoderate sleep duration (4-6 hours),particularly if combined with fair or poorsleep quality, reported by Australianseafarers should be further investigated.This is relevant given that the highestpercentage of miscellaneous commentsregarding additional sources of stress atsea related to the poor sleep behaviourand its progressive effect on fatigue. Forexample, some respondents reportedworking for 16-18 hours daily and thenexperiencing poor quality, short durationsleep during subsequent days or weeks.Under such circumstances it is highlyprobable that a sleep deficit will beexperienced. In turn, fatigue may

accumulate and performance and moodwill deteriorate (Tilley et al., 1982). Thepresent seafarers’ comments raisedconcern that safety was beingcompromised when returning to dutyafter poor sleep, particularly when moredangerous tasks, such as ship handling inbusy traffic and bad weather, wereperformed. Similar reports of longworking hours and poor quality sleep inthe maritime industry have been reportedelsewhere (Osler, 1997).

Comments from the present respondentsindicated they accepted that working atsea was, by the nature of the environment,associated with some disturbances tonormal sleeping patterns. However, sleepwas worsened on many ships by factorssuch as the location of the sleepingaccommodation in close proximity to noisesources, as well as the poor soundproofingof sleeping accommodation. Moreover,seafarers also indicated that the shortduration sleep (4-6 hours) was morefragmented, often being broken into two,three hour periods of sleep of poor quality.This was often the case when the shipvisited a number of ports in a short timeand/or during bad weather.

Figure 5.4: Percentage of the entiremaritime sample and fouroccupational groups reporting lessthan 4 hours of daily sleep at sea.

All


Engineers Crew

10%

20%

0%

30%

40%

55

10%

All

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Engineers Crew0%

10%

Figure 5.5: Percentage of the entiremaritime sample and four occupationalgroups reporting occasional-frequentstress at sea.

All

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5.5 STRESSData shown in Table 5.1 provides an initialinsight into stress in the Australian mari-time population. It clearly illustrates thatall aspects of maritime work are poten-tially associated with stress that, in mostrespondents, is experienced occasionally,and in about 24% of the sample, is experi-enced frequently. A very small percentageof seafarers reported constant stress. Thelevel of stress ranges from mild (in 40% ofthe sample) to high (in 11% of the sample).That the majority of seafarers reportedoccasional or frequent stress (~85%) andmoderate to high levels of stress (~60%) atsea demonstrates that work at sea, regard-less of the occupation, is associated withconsiderable stress (Figures 5.5 and 5.6).


Engineers Crew0%

Figure 5.6: Percentage of the entiremaritime sample and four occupationalgroups reporting moderate-high stresslevels at sea.

Miscellaneous comments provide somefurther insight into the causes of stressacross all groups. Respondents indicatedthat stress at sea was chiefly related tothe quality of sleep, work schedules andhours and feeling fatigued. This isconsistent with data presented in Table5.1 which shows the high incidence offair or poor quality sleep amongstpersonnel, as well as with othermiscellaneous commentaries that relatedthis phenomenon to the accumulation offatigue in some workers. Furthermore,changes in pilotage operations resultingin increased competition for businesshave been cited as causing considerablestress amongst this professional group.

56

5.6 RELAXATIONRelaxation was classified as watchingtelevision, reading, playing cards orengaging in hobbies. The majority ofmaritime personnel reported achieving 1-3 hours of relaxation per day, withapproximately 15% of the group achievingmore relaxation per day (Table 5.1).

In the present sample significantdifferences between the groups wereevident; in particular, 50% of pilots failedto achieve any relaxation during the day(Figure 5.7). This is consistent with the oncall nature of pilotage work whilst at sea.In contrast to other seafaring groups,pilots are allocated time ashore betweenwork assignments for relaxation andrecuperation. It can also be noted thatbetween 2 and 8% of other seafaringgroups reported no daily relaxation. Thismay reflect individual commentarieswhich indicated that in some instances,excessive workloads were experienced fora large proportion of the swing leaving notime for relaxation (Appendix 7).


10%

0%

Figure 5.7: Percentage of the entire maritime sample and four occupationalgroups reporting no daily relaxation at sea.

All

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

5.7 SUMMARYThe data indicates that, while workingand living at sea, a considerableproportion of seafarers smoke, aboutone-third exceed the NHF safe limits foralcohol consumption, and a very highnumber of seafarers do not meet theexercise levels recommended by theNHF. This is especially the case withcrew. The potential impact that thesebehaviours have on common disorderssuch as cardiovascular and lung diseasesuggests they should be more closelyexamined. The quality and duration ofsleep is often fair to poor, particularlyamongst pilots. Because of the nature ofpilotage duties this group also reportthey have very little if any, time forrelaxation whilst at sea. All groups ofseafarers experience occasional tofrequent stress that, more often, rangesbetween moderate and high levels. Theimpact that this has on both health andwork performance warrants closerevaluation.

57

SECTION 6

NUTRITION AND ASSOCIATEDATTITUDES AT SEA

Sugar

Fat

Fibre

Nutritional relevance

Pronutrition

Nutrition excuses

Food exploration


58

Sugar food habit 2.6 1.9 2.7 2.7 2.5(0.02) (0.20) (0.04) (0.03) (0.03) ***

Fat food habit 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.6(0.01) (0.11) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) ***

Fibre food habit 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.3 4.3(0.02) (0.16) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) ***

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

Crew

%

Engineers

%

Masters/Mates

%

Variable Pilots

%

Total

%

Table 6.0: Scores for the frequency of food habits at sea in the entiremaritime sample and four occupational groups. Values are mean (SEM)

SEM = Standard Error of the Mean1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups after adjusting for age differences.

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

Crew

%

Engineers

%

Masters/Mates

%

Variable Pilots

%

Total

%

Table 6.1: Nutritional attitude scores in the entire maritime sample and fouroccupational groups. Values are mean (SEM)

NormativeGroup*

SEM = Standard Error of the Mean1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significantly different at p < 0.01level.

* Normative group= 1195 responses from white and blue collar workers.

# Significantly different to normative data, p < 0.01 level.

Nutritional relevance 4.3 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.1 ***(0.04) (0.02) # (0.17) (0.03) (0.03) (0.04)

Pro-Nutrition 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 ns(0.02) (0.03) # (0.22) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04)

Nutrition excuses 3.8 3.9 3.1 3.8 3.9 3.9 ns(0.03) (0.03) (0.24) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)

Food exploration 4.4 5.0 5.1 5.2 4.9 4.9 ns(0.02) (0.03) # (0.18) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)

59

Table 6.0 shows scores for the frequency ofthree food habits (propensity to eat certaintypes of food: i.e. sugar, fat and fibre)amongst the maritime groups. The score foreach of the food habits was the sum of theresponses to a number of individualquestions measuring the frequency ofconsuming sugar, fat and fibre. Scoring foreach of the food habits was based on a six-point scale ranging from never (score = 1)to every day (score = 6). Consequently, ahigher score for a particular item indicatesmore frequent consumption of that particu-lar food.

The three food habit scores are correlatedwith the actual sugar, fat and fibre con-sumption as measured by a full foodfrequency questionnaire in a test sample(Cochrane, 1994). The three scores are usedhere because a full food frequency ques-tionnaire would have placed unreasonabledemands on the present respondents. Thescores do not actually measure the amountof sugar, fat and fibre consumed in absoluteterms but can be used to make comparisonsacross groups and between sea and ashore.

6.1 SUGAR, FAT AND FIBRETable 6.0 indicates those personnel at seafor extended periods of time reported morefrequent consumption of sugar, fat andfibre than the pilot group. This differencemight relate to the reduced time that pilotsspend aboard each ship, and relativelylonger periods of exposure to these foodsexperienced by officers and crew members.

As the data were corrected for age, thelower consumption of sugar, fat and fibreby the pilots were not attributable to theolder age profile of this group. It is possiblethat the work practices of changing shipsand the varying fare offered on foreign flagvessels may have influenced the results.

Comments from individual seafarersrelevant to this issue raised concernsrelating to the lack of direct control overshipboard meals, and the large amounts offried food and absence of low-fat productson some ships.

No data were collected regarding timing ofmeals during the working day.

6.2 NUTRITIONAL ATTITUDESNutritional attitudes are defined as thepreferences and feelings one holdstowards nutrition. These attitudes wereassessed through four dimensions:nutritional relevance, pronutrition,nutrition excuses and food exploration(Cochrane, 1994). Nutritional attitude datais shown in Table 6.1.

The score for each of the dimensions ofnutritional attitude was the sum ofresponses to a number of individualquestions. Scoring for each of thedimensions of nutritional attitude(nutritional relevance, pronutrition,nutrition excuses and food exploration)was measured on a six-point scale rangingfrom strongly agree (scale = 1) to stronglydisagree (scale = 6).

6.3 NUTRITIONAL RELEVANCENutritional relevance measured if and whynutrition was important to the respondent.A higher score indicated that the respond-ents perceived nutrition as being of greaterrelevance. Overall, maritime personnelrated the relevance of nutrition to theirown health significantly higher than thenormative group.

When contrasting seafaring groups,significant differences existed. Pilots andcrew members rated nutrition as lessrelevant to their health than engineers andmasters/mates.

60

6.4 PRONUTRITIONPronutrition measured the beliefs therespondents had about the importance ofnutrition to peoples’ lives. A higher scoreindicated negative nutritional beliefs(e.g. nutrition was not important).Seafarers, held more negative beliefs thanthe normative group regarding theimportance of nutrition.

Comparisons between the maritimegroups revealed no significant differenceson pronutrition scores, thereby indicatingeach of the occupational groups heldsimilar beliefs about the importance ofnutrition.

6.5 NUTRITION EXCUSESNutrition excuses measured the reasonspeople offer for not adopting healthiereating practices. A higher score indicatedthat the individual offered fewer excusesfor not adopting healthier eating habits.As revealed in Table 6.1, seafarers weresimilar to shore-based workers in thenumber of nutritional excuses offered fornot adopting healthier eating habits.

The slightly lower score in the pilotgroup suggests that there was a tendencyfor pilots to offer more excuses for notadopting healthier eating habits thanother groups. This may be related to thefact that when on a tour of duty, thepilots catering source continuallychanges. Pilots move between various onshore accommodation sites and work ona number of different types of ships.Hence, pilots may perceive that they havevery little control over what they eat.

6.6 FOOD EXPLORATIONFood exploration measured the tendencyof individuals to try new foods. A higherscore indicated individuals were moreexplorative with food. The totalmaritime group demonstrated a greatertendency towards exploring new foodscompared with the normative group.Given that seafarers have little controlover shipboard catering this finding isnot unexpected. There were nosignificant differences in this nutritionaldimension between maritime groups.

6.7 SUMMARYThe findings from this section indicatedthat pilots consumed less sugar, fat andfibre whilst at sea as compared with theother maritime groups. This may berelated to the distinct differences in workpatterns between the groups (i.e. pilotsfrequently transit between shore and sea,and work on a number of different ships).Individual seafarers did express concernrelating to their lack of direct control overshipboard meals, the large amounts offried food and lack of availability of low-fat products on some ships.

Overall, the maritime groups rated therelevance of nutrition higher, had slightlymore negative beliefs about theimportance of nutrition, and were moreexplorative with food than the normativegroup. The only difference between themaritime groups was in the measure ofnutritional relevance. Pilots and crewmembers rated nutrition as less relevantto their health than engineers andmasters/mates.

61

SECTION 7

COMPARISON OF HEALTH -RELATEDBEHAVIOUR AND

STRESS AT SEA AND ASHORE

Smoking

Drinking

Exercising

Sleep

Stress

Relaxation

Sugar

Fat

Fibre


62

Behaviours

SEM = Standard Error of the Mean

1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significantly different at p < 0.01level.

a= NHF (National Heart Foundation) guidelines for alcohol consumption = 1-2 standard drinksper day with at least 2 days per week alcohol free. Instructions were provided in thequestionnaire describing standard drinks.

b= NHF (National Heart Foundation) guidelines for exercise prescription for health and generalfitness = moderate intensity aerobic type activity, 3 or more times per week for a duration of 20minutes or more.

Table 7.0 : Health-related behaviours at sea and ashore for all maritime personnel

Level of StatisticalSignificance1AshoreSea

Smoking

Smokers (%) 28.3 28.8 ns

Cigarettes per day [Mean (SEM)] 20.2 (0.6) 18.1 (0.5) ***

Drinking

Drinkers (%) 52.2 90.3 ***

Drinks per week [Mean (SEM)] 11.6 (0.4) 14.8 (0.4) ***

Exceeds NHF Guidelines for alcohol (%) a 31.7 68.7 ***

Aerobic Exercise

Percentage that exercise (%) 38.7 39.2 ns

Exercise frequency (3 times per week) (%) 39.9 49.0 ***

Exercise duration (20 minutes or more) (%) 75.8 98.5 ***

Meet NHF guidelines b for exercise (%) 18.3 18.7 ns

63

7.1 SMOKINGThe percentage of smokers at sea andashore were not significantly different;however, the smoking frequency wassignificantly higher when at sea (Figure7.0). A similar pattern has been reportedby Cronan & Colleagues (1991) whonoted that sea-going navy personnelhave a higher frequency of smokingcompared with those personnel ashore.This apparent trend may be related to thehigher levels of boredom and/or stressexperienced at sea, as both these factorshave been associated with an increasedfrequency of smoking (Berger, 1983a;Fisher, 1993). In addition, other factorssuch as the lower cost of cigarettes andthe availability of leisure time maycontribute to the higher smoking rates atsea. Thus when looking to implement

strategies to reduce smoking incidenceand frequency, factors such as stress andboredom should be addressed. Thatsome personnel stated there was a needfor ‘quit’ programs for smoking to beimplemented at sea illustrates that, atleast some personnel might be receptiveto strategies that attempt to reducesmoking at sea.

Figure 7.0: Number of cigarettes smoked per day by the entire maritime sampleat sea and ashore.

10

20

30

NHF ~ 18/day

*** = Statistically significant difference between sea and ashore, p < 0.001.

***

Location

Num

ber

of c

igar

ette

s sm

oked

dai

ly (

Mea

n +

sem

)

Sea Ashore0

64

7.2 DRINKING ALCOHOLThere were significant differences indrinking habits at sea and ashore. (Figure7.1). While ashore nearly all personnelreported drinking alcohol, and drinkersconsumed a significantly higher numberof drinks per week. The higher number ofdrinks per week consumed ashorecompared with at sea (Table 7.0) isconsistent with data showing an increasein the amount of alcohol consumed byshiftworkers on days off (or time ashore inthis case) (Fisher & Read, 1987).

Importantly, the proportion of maritimepersonnel who exceeded the NHF safelimits for alcohol consumption increasedmore than two-fold when ashore (68.7%)

compared with at sea (31.7%), and washigher than Australian population dataindicating ~50% of males exceed theguidelines (NHF, 1989). Traditionally, theseafaring life has been associated with aconsiderable degree of alcoholconsumption by some employees. In fact,in a review of maritime studies alcoholismhas been cited as a potential occupationalrisk of seafaring (Parker et al., 1996). Thedifferences in the consumption of alcoholin the present seafarers at sea and ashoremay be partly related to recent maritimeindustry guidelines for drinking at sea,and the existence of alcohol free or ‘dry’ships in some sections of the industry (i.e.Offshore Oil and Gas).

Drinkers Exceeds NHF Guidelines

10%

0%

Figure 7.1: Drinking habits of the entire maritime sample at sea and ashore.

Sea Ashore

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

*** = Statistically significant difference between sea and ashore, p < 0.001.

Drinking Habits

***

***

65

7.3 AEROBIC EXERCISEA similar proportion of maritimepersonnel engaged in aerobic exercise atsea and ashore. This suggests that thosewho perform aerobic exercise at sea alsoexercise ashore. The proportion ofexercisers who met the National HeartFoundation limits for exercise duration andfrequency increased significantly whenashore, suggesting that the at-seaenvironment impedes good exercisebehaviour to some extent (Figure 7.2).However, improvement in exercisebehaviour did not have a significant impacton the number of exercisers who met theNHF guidelines for exercise required toexert a positive effect on cardiorespiratoryhealth. This would imply a need to educatethose who do exercise to modify theirexercise habits, perhaps only slightly, toachieve the minimal levels recommended

by the NHF. Although not presented in thereport, data on the use of stress copingstrategies indicated the present seafarersused stress coping strategies more thanshore-based workers. In particular, crewmembers tended to use passive copingstrategies (i.e. smoking) to a greater degreethan other groups. Given the wellestablished role of exercise as an activestrategy to moderate stress levels, this focusfor exercise could be incorporated withstrategies to promote increased exerciseparticipation. Strategies that encouragegood exercise habits might also focus onpromoting regular exercise amongst non-exercisers. In conjunction with otherstrategies designed to reduce stress andfatigue, the impact that increased exerciseparticipation might have on health and, inparticular, stress at sea deserves closeattention.

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

100%

Exercise Frequency Aerobic Exercise Exercise Duration Meets NHFGuidelines

*** = Statistically significant difference between sea and ashore p < 0.001.

Figure 7.2: Exercise habits of the entire maritime sample at sea and ashore.

***

***

Habits

Sea Ashore

66

7.4 SLEEP, STRESS ANDRELAXATION AT SEA ANDASHOREComparisons of health and lifestylebehaviour between sea and ashorerevealed significant differences in thequality and duration of sleep (p < 0.001),the frequency and level of stress(p < 0.001) and the time spent relaxingeach day (p < 0.001). Indications of theextent of these differences in selectedlevels of sleep, stress and relaxation areshown in Figure 7.3.

On these lifestyle variables it can benoted that when at sea the duration andquality of sleep was inferior, and stresswas more frequent and of a higher level.However, the data indicated thatseafarers were able to return to normalsleep patterns, experience less stress andspend more time relaxing when ashore.

Given the relatively long periods that canbe spent at sea, and given the potentialimpact that inadequate sleep andrelaxation can have on stress, fatigue andthe health of the individual, theimplementation of strategies thatimprove sleep and relaxation in allmaritime groups needs to be considered.

20%

40%

60%

80%

0%

100%

Very poor/poorquality sleep

4-6 hours dailysleep

High stress Three hours or lessdaily relaxation

Figure 7.3: Summary of selected sleep, stress and relaxation habits at sea andashore for the entire maritime sample.

Habits

Sea Ashore

67

7.5 NUTRITION HABITSTable 7.1 show a comparison of food habits

at sea and ashore for the entire maritime

group. The data indicate a significantly

higher consumption of sugar and fat at sea

compared with ashore. This suggests that

the consumption of these foods may be

influenced by the environment.

That slightly less fat is consumed ashore

supports negative comments made by

some maritime personnel suggesting

foods high in fat due to cooking

procedures are prevalent on board some

ships. In addition, respondents suggested

that there should be more low-fat food

available while at sea. The food data

indicates that a closer inspection of the

types of food made available at sea, and

its relationship to both the type of ship

Sugar 2.6 (0.02) 2.5 (0.02) ***

Fat 2.6 (0.01) 2.3 (0.02) ***

Fibre 4.4 (0.02) 4.3 (0.03) ns

Level of StatisticalSignificance1

Food Habit AshoreSea

SEM= Standard error of the mean

1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significantdifference between the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significantlydifferent at p < 0.01 level.

Table 7.1: Food habits at sea and ashore for the entire maritime sample.Values are mean and (SEM).

and the duration of the swing, is

required before further comment can be

made about the real significance of both

this data and personnels’ individual

comments.

68

7.6 SUMMARYThe at-sea environment exerted bothpositive and negative effects on health-related behaviour. For example, theincidence and intensity of alcoholconsumption was lower at-sea thanashore. That approximately 2-fold moremaritime personnel exceeded the NHFsafe limits for alcohol consumptionashore compared with at-sea might be ofconcern and, if so, its causes need furtherstudy. In contrast to drinking behaviour,the smoking frequency amongst thosewho smoked decreased slightly whilstashore, and the exercise habits improvedashore amongst those who also exercisedat sea. Yet, even ashore there was arelatively higher than normal smokingincidence amongst some maritimegroups, as well as a relatively lower thannormal incidence of exercise behaviourrequired to exert a positivecardiorespiratory health benefit. Giventhe consistency of the behavioursbetween the two environments, strategiesto improve smoking and exercisebehaviour could be considered andmight even be implemented at-sea, withthe potential for such effects to transfer tolife ashore.

The duration and quality of sleep, as wellas the time spent relaxing, improvedamongst all maritime groups whileashore. This supports the commonnotion amongst seafarers that sleep isimpaired at sea. That poor sleep probablycontributes to fatigue and stressrepresents a primary problem with theat-sea environment that should beaddressed. Nutritional habits were notinfluenced greatly by the environment,

although the decrease in fat consumptionashore supports personnels’ commentsabout the inadequate availability of foodswith lower fat content while at sea. Thatthis is also perceived by some to be asource of stress highlights the importanceof a more detailed analysis of nutrition atsea and, in particular, its variabilityacross the ships and types of voyages.

69

SECTION 8

DRUG USE AND AWARENESS

Drug free functioning


70

8.1 DRUG FREE FUNCTIONINGThe level of drug free functioning wasdetermined from responses to questionsassociated with drug use and awareness.The questions related to:

(i) The use of prescription and otherdrugs such as social drugs, stimulantsand depressants; and

(ii) Awareness of the effects of drugs andthe reliance on strategies other thandrugs to cope.

The score for drug use and awarenesswas the sum of the responses to a numberof individual questions relating toattitudes and use of prescription and non-prescription drugs. Scoring was based ona six-point scale ranging from never(score = 1) to always (score = 6). Thescores represent being able to functionwithout the unnecessary use of chemicals,prescription and non-prescription drugs

(i.e. being drug free). A higher scoreindicates being more drug free.

Compared with normative groups, basedon studies conducted by the NationalWellness Institute (1994), seafarersfunctioned less well without the use ofdrugs (normative 91 vs maritime 80.4)(Table 8.0). Since the questions addressprescription and non-prescription drugsthere is the possibility that the finding ofless drug free functioning in maritimepersonnel may be related to prescriptiondrugs for blood pressure and sleepproblems.

There were significant differencesbetween the groups on the degree towhich respondents functioned withoutdrugs.

Compared with other groups, crewmembers relied more on the use of drugsto function. There is evidence in the

Table 8.0: Functioning drug free in the entire maritime sample and four maritimegroups. Values are mean (SEM).


Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant differencebetween the groups after adjusting for age differences.

Drug free 80.4 81.5 81.5 81.9 78.9 ***(2.3) (1.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3)

VariableLevel of

StatisticalSignificance1

CrewEngineersMasters/MatesPilotsTotal

71

maritime literature that demanning hasinfluenced both working and living atsea with some alteration of socialstructures. Although not shown in thisreport, the present investigation showedthat crew members more than othergroups, reported using social support tocope with occupational stress. It hasbeen shown that a lack of social contactcan increase boredom and loneliness(Dyer-Smith, 1993), and it is possible thatcrew members may be more affected by

Figure 8.0: Level of drug free functioning for the entire maritime sample and fouroccupational groups.



10%

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

90%

Engineers Crew

Leve

l of d

rug

free

func

tioni

ng (

mea

n + S

EM

)

All

80%

the social environment at sea than othergroups. Therefore, the finding that thisgroup is more likely to use drugs to copewhile at sea is not completelyunexpected.

A closer examination of this issue wouldbe required before any definiteconclusions can be drawn.

73

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PART B - OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

74

Stress is a significant occupational healthproblem resulting in heavy costs not onlyto individuals, but also to organisationsand society. Occupational stress occurswhen a person is confronted with anenvironment that poses a threat ordemand, and they perceive they do nothave the capability or resources to matchor exceed the source of stress. Theresulting imbalance can lead to reducedwork performance and reducedemployee health and well-being.

Major reforms in the Australian maritimeindustry have the potential to impact onoccupational stress levels. Therefore, oneof the specific aims of the project was todetermine the sources and consequencesof occupational stress within the industry.The instrument used for this purpose wasthe Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI)which has been used by a large number oforganisations in the private and publicsector (Cooper et al., 1988). Thisinstrument is a well validated measure ofoccupational stress (Cooper & Bramwell,1992; Cooper & Williams, 1991; Robertson,

Cooper & Williams, 1990). The area ofexamination and broad data analysisstrategies are presented in Figure 9.1.

Data analysis enabled the raw scores onsources of occupational stress forseafarers to be compared with normativegroups of shore-based workers, andbetween occupational groups. Normativedata was based on results of 22 studieswhich investigated white and blue collarworkers, thereby providing a sample sizeof between 7000 and 8000 (Cooper et al.,1994). In some instances, directcomparisons were possible with thepresent results and other maritime data.A further step in the analysis procedureranked the OSI scores enabling the moststressful aspect of work to be identifiedfor the entire sample and for eachoccupational group (Figure 9.1).Appendix 1 outlines the samplingstrategy and the number of respondentsby job category.

The final analysis stage enabled the factorscontributing to occupational stress to be

• Industry specific sources of stress

• General sources of stress at work

• Sources of job satisfaction

• Mental and physical ill health

• OSI SCALES: Comparisons with normative data and between groups

• RANKED OSI SCORES: Highest sources of stress or job satisfaction

ANALYSIS

Figure 9.1: Broad analysis plan of occupational stress data

75

determined. Figure 9.2 shows the broadareas from which factors contributing tooccupational stress were identified. Detailsof the methods used to determine thesefactors are shown in statistical methods(Appendix 1).

Data analysis in this section were based on168 questions (140 OSI and 28 industryspecific). The four separate questionnaireswere entitled:

SOURCES OF STRESS• Industry specific sources of stress

- Hardships at sea

- Weather- Missing home- Broken rest- Long hours

• General Sources of stress at work

- Factors intrinsic to the job- Managerial role

- Relationships with others- Career and achievement- Organisational structure

- Home work interface

Figure 9.2: Factors contributing to occupational stress.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TOOCCUPATIONAL STRESS

Industry specificfactors

Health & lifestylefactors

Demographicfactors

Medicalfactors

INDIVIDUAL CONSEQUENCESOF STRESS• Sources of job satisfaction

- Achievement, value and growth

- Job itself

- Organisation design and structure

- Organisational process

- Personal relationships

• Mental and physical ill health

- Mental ill health

- Physical ill health

Throughout the following sections a briefdescription is included for each subscaleas well as an interpretation of the scaleresponses.

In the final section of the survey,seafarers were also invited to providewritten comments in relation to stressand fatigue at sea and ashore.

77

SECTION 9

INDUSTRY-SPECIFICSOURCES OF STRESS

Environmental hardships at sea

Weather

Missing home

Broken rest

Long hours

Change in the Industry


78

Hardships at sea 15.4 10.5 12.5 17.8 15.7

(0.1) (0.8) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) ***

Weather 7.1 6.2 7.3 7.1 7.1

(0.1) (0.7) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) ns

Missing home 13.4 11.8 13.4 13.3 13.4

(0.1) (0.9) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) ns

Broken rest 12.6 10.2 12.7 14.2 11.8

(0.1) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) ***

Long hours 12.1 10.2 12.4 12.3 11.8

(0.1) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) ns

Industry change2 76.5% 77.8% 71% 75.1% 82.2% **

Level ofStatistical

Significance1

CrewEngineersMasters/MatesVariable PilotsSeafarers

Table 9.0: Industry specific sources of occupational stress for the entiremaritime sample and four occupational groups. Values are mean (SEM).


1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01 represents a statistically

significant difference between the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not

significant at p < 0.01 level.

2 = % of the entire sample and each occupational group who reported they found changes in

the industry a demand (scoring 4, 5, 6 on a six-point scale as shown above). Industry change

consisted of one single item question.

79

Definitions of the measures identifiedunder industry specific sources of stressare as follows:

• Hardships at sea = Environmentalhardships: excessive noise, hotworking environment, inadequatelighting, level of humidity.

• Weather = Excessive gales, badweather

• Missing home = Being away fromhome for extended periods, concernfor loved ones ashore, insufficient timewith family/spouse/children.

• Broken rest = Being wokenunexpectedly from sleep,unpredictable working hours, being oncall during rest breaks.

• Long working hours = Long workinghours, inadequate rest during trips,inadequate rest between shifts andwatches.

• Change in the industry = Change inthe maritime industry (one single itemquestion).

Results for industry specific sources ofstress for the entire maritime sample andfour occupational groups are shown inTable 9.0. Differences between theoccupational groups on these measuresare shown in Appendix 3.0 (Figures 3a-d). Individual comments from seafarers(Appendix 7) are used when appropriateto provide some explanation for thedifferences identified.

The scores for industry specific sources ofstress measure the degree of demandassociated with each source. The score foreach source is the sum of the responses toa number of individual questions.Scoring is based on a six-point scaleranging from very definitely is not a

demand (scale = 1), to very definitely is ademand (scale = 6). A higher score for anoccupational group indicates a particularindustry specific source is reported to bea greater demand for that group.

9.1 ENVIRONMENTALHARDSHIPS AT SEAData in Table 9.0 shows significantdifferences between the groups on thelevel of stress associated with hardshipsat sea. Since this scale measuresenvironmental hardships (heat, humidityand noise) it is not unexpected thatengineers and, to a lesser degree, crewmembers reported higher stress from thissource, given their on board occupationaltasks. Pilots (score 10.5) and masters/mates (score 12.5) scored considerablylower than the entire sample (score 15.4),indicating these groups experience lessstress than others from this aspect of thework environment (Table 9.0).

The greater level of stress for engineersfrom this source was supported bymiscellaneous comments from thisgroup. For instance, engineers raisedconcern regarding the level of addedstress experienced from heat, humidityand noise and its impact on health.Previous maritime data indicateshardships experienced with exposure toextreme environmental conditions have asignificant negative influence on healthand performance (Saunders &McCormick, 1992).

In a review of maritime studies, highlevel and constant noise exposure havebeen shown previously to be associatedwith poor health outcomes (Parker et al.,1996). In particular, noise discomfort

80

increases as a function of time and cancontribute to fatigue and other healthconditions such as neurotic syndromes,arterial hypertension, gastric andduodenal ulcers (Filikowski, 1989; Warr,1992). There is also some evidenceindicating the effort required to sustaincommunication under conditions ofexcessive noise can lead to aggressivebehaviour (Jones & Broadbent, 1987). Thefinding of more self-reported auditoryproblems amongst engineers and to alesser extent crew (Section 4.0), supportsa possible relationship between excessivenoise and deterioration of hearingabilities in these groups.

Other environmental hardships at seaalso caused concern for seafarers. Forexample, although not examined in thissurvey, miscellaneous commentsindicated seafarers were concerned withthe health consequences of excessivelevels of pollutants. Exposure todangerous materials such as detergents,fumes, solvents, oils and dust wasconsidered problematic. Additionallythere appears to be inadequateequipment on some ships to monitor thelevel of these substances.

9.2 WEATHERAll groups reported a similar level ofstress from excessive gales and badweather (Table 9.0). Comments fromseafarers drew attention to theconsequences of bad weather. Forexample, some respondents indicatedprolonged bad weather resulted inadditional physical and mental fatigue,as well as poor sleep and joint sorenessfrom the constant pitching and rolling of

the ship. This latter complaint issubstantiated by the fact that during badweather, the pitching and rolling of theship is counteracted by motions of thelower extremities (knees and ankles) andthe lumbar spine resulting in increasedstress on joints in these parts of the body(Torner et al., 1994).

9.3 MISSING HOMEAll groups reported a similar level ofstress from missing home (Table 9.0).This finding was supported bymiscellaneous comments pointing outthat stress levels at sea increased whenfamily members were ill, particularly iftelephone contact was difficult. Thesereports are consistent with findings inoffshore industries which indicated thatseparation from family and home wasthe most significant factor contributingto occupational stress in offshoreindustries (Sutherland & Flin, 1989).While missing home is ‘part-of-the-job’,some suggestions to minimise the impactof this are related to permittingoccasional visits to, or voyages on shipsby the family (Appendix 7). Interestingly,similar suggestions to reduce problemsassociated with missing home werereported by Foster and Cacioppe (1986) -over 10 years ago. It appears that thisissue is still largely unresolved across theindustry in Australia (although someunion groups and shipping companiesare proactive with this issue and appearto be most supportive). In some countriessuch as the United Kingdom and NewZealand, having families at seaoccasionally is, and has been quitecommon for many years (Foster &Cacioppe, 1986).

81

9.4 BROKEN RESTData in Table 9.0 reveals the occupationalgroups experienced significantly differentlevels of stress from broken rest. Thegroup differences were chiefly due to thehigher scores for broken rest by engineersand masters/mates. This result indicatedthat these groups are affected more by thisaspect than either the crew or pilots (Table9.0). The considerably lower score bypilots may indicate that members of thisgroup may have adjusted to taking shortnaps rather than a single block of sleep,given the variable hours across day andnight of pilotage duties.

Comments from engineers highlightedconcern over the broken sleep periods,being called out unexpectedly, and theresulting cumulative fatigue over theswing duration of monitoring unmannedmachinery space (Appendix 7). This isconsistent with maritime data which hasshown that on call situations disturb sleepnot only by reducing the actual time spentin bed, but also through indirect effectspossibly associated with apprehension(Torsvall & Akerstedt, 1988).

9.5 LONG HOURSSimilar levels of demand from longworking hours were experienced by thegroups, with engineers and masters/mates scoring slightly higher, and pilotsscoring lower. This indicates that whilelong working hours impacted on allgroups, the impact was marginallyhigher on officers than crew or pilots,though this result was not statisticallysignificant (Table 9.0). Comments fromseafarers supported the findings of thissection. Seafarers indicated that long

working hours combined with poorquality sleep resulted in acute andchronic fatigue, with fatigue becomingespecially prevalent towards the end ofshifts. As a consequence, poor decisionsare made and safety is compromisedparticularly when handling andmanoeuvring vessels in bad weatherclose to fixed structures. It was suggestedthat these problems have become moreprevalent since demanning.

The demands of long working hoursreported by Australian seafarers areconsistent with previous data showingthe length of working hours for somegroups of international seafarers. Forexample, a survey of 863 Swedishmerchant seamen revealed that theaverage number of hours worked perweek by the group was 65. Additionally,the results showed that crew membersworked between 65-70 hours per week,with the chief officer working ~ 75 hourseach week (cited in SeafarersInternational Research Centre, 1996).Data from the United Kingdom alsoshows a similar trend of long workinghours by merchant seamen; workdaysranged from 12-20 hours and workingweeks of more than 85 hours have beenreported (NUMAST, 1990).

According to one recent report(Seafarers International Research Centre,1996), seafaring work will alwayscontain an element of fatigue which willvary according to workload (as definedby a combination of long hours and poorsleep). However, appropriate steps mustbe taken to minimise the impact of thisfactor across the industry.

82

9.6 INDUSTRY CHANGEA high percentage of the entire sample(~76%) and each occupational group(ranging from 71% in masters/mates, to~82% in crew members) reported thatindustry change was associated withincreased demands (Table 9.0). Majorreforms in the industry have affectedseveral aspects of the seafarer’s physicaland cultural environment. These includethe type of work, patterns of work andleisure, work environment and interper-sonal relationships identified in a review ofmaritime studies (Parker et al., 1996). Therelatively older age profile, coupled withthe stability of the workforce suggests thatchange, particularly of a technologicalnature, would be an extra source of occu-pational stress for Australian seafarers.Additionally, for the younger members ofthe workforce, industry change may resultin more concern over career and financialsecurity (Legee et al., 1996).

Differences in the response of individualoccupational groups to industry changeindicated that a higher percentage of crewexperienced more stress from this sourcethan other groups. This finding may reflectthe general uncertainty in the industry andindividual concerns with respect to jobsecurity following reform. Individualcommentaries from crew raised concernregarding the uncertainty associated withissues such as the removal of cabotage, andreduction in job numbers.

As shown in Table 9.0 industry changeappeared to impact least on masters/mates, with pilots and engineers affected toa similar degree. Comments from pilotsraised concern regarding some of therecent changes in pilotage operations. Forinstance, the intervention by Federal

government authorities in the regulationand licensing functions of pilotage serv-ices, resulting in a commercially competi-tive environment, appears to have causedthe pilot group additional levels of stress.Engineers highlighted the decreasednumbers in the engineering departmentand the increased workloads sincedemanning as issues of concern, particu-larly the availability of sufficient time andpersonnel to carry out maintenanceprograms.

9.7 SUMMARYThe results of this section show commonelements of a seafarer’s work such asmissing home, bad weather and longworking hours constituted a similardemand for all groups. The differentdemands between the occupational groupsfrom industry specific sources of stressreflected the different occupational taskson board. For instance, engineers and crewexperienced more stress with hardships atsea associated with the workingenvironment (heat, humidity and noise).Broken rest was a greater source of stressfor those required to respond to alarms(engineers) and keep watches (masters/mates). Pilots reported less stress fromindustry specific sources than othergroups. Notably, a high percentage of allgroups reported demands associated withchange in the industry. The level of stressfrom industry specific factors appears tohave an additive effect on fatigue. Forexample, prolonged working hours in aharsh environment coupled with poorquality and broken sleep have the potentialto contribute to acute and chronic fatigue.The results suggest that at the very least, acloser examination of long working hoursand sleep patterns is necessary.

83

SECTION 10

GENERAL SOURCES OFPRESSURE AT WORK

Factors intrinsic to the job

Managerial role

Relationships with others

Career and achievement

Organisational structure

Home/work interface


84

Table 10.0: Sources of pressure at work for normative groups, the entiremaritime sample and four occupational groups. Values are mean (SEM).


1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant difference

between the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significant at p < 0.01 level

**a = significant difference (p < 0.01) between Australian seafarers and normative data, ns= notsignificant.

# Normative groups: Data are collected from 22 different groups of workers including white andblue collar workers involved in normal hours and shiftwork (n = 7000-8000).

Factors intrinsic 30.22 32.8 27.3 33.0 33.2 31.3to the job (0.1) (0.2)**a (1.9) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) ***

Managerial role 35.5 36.7 29.9 38.2 37.4 35.6(0.1) (0.2)**a (2.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.3) ***

Relationships 30.3 34.5 25.8 36.3 34.6 33.7with others (0.1) (0.2)**a (2.5) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) ***

Career and 28.4 29.8 25.9 30.4 30.0 29.5achievement (0.1) (0.2)**a (1.9) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) ns

Organisational 38.9 40.0 28.8 40.6 40.8 39.5structure (0.1) (0.2)**a (2.3) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) ***

Home/work 30.9 33.8 31.1 33.8 32.8 34.3interface (0.1) (0.3)**a (2.1) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) ns

Level ofStatistical

Significance1


Variable PilotsSeafarersNormativegroups #

85

Definitions of the measures identifiedunder sources of pressure at work are asfollows:

• Factors intrinsic to the job - “sourcesof stress originating from thefundamental nature of the job - tasks,hours, variety, keeping up withtechnology, the accumulative effects ofminor tasks and decision making.”

• Managerial role - “how individualsperceive the expectations that othershave of them when performing theirjobs - conflicting job tasks, adoptingnegative roles, implications ofdecisions”.

• Relationships with others -“relationships with others inside andoutside the organisation and relation-ships with superiors - supervisingothers, coping with politics, lack ofsocial support, feeling isolated,personality clashes with others”.

• Career and achievement - “the need toachieve can be a major source ofcorporate and personal success, or interms of its blockage, a major stress -career path, promotion prospects,opportunities for personaldevelopment, threat of redundancy orearly retirement”.

• Organisational structure - “sources oforganisational stress originate fromstructural design and process featuresof the organisation - associated withthe various elements in the industrysuch as administrative and managerialissues”.

• Home/work interface - “the overlapbetween work and home; the two wayrelationship involves the source ofstress at work affecting home life and

vice versa - affects of seafaring onhome life, demands from work athome, no support from home, absenceof stability in home life”.

Results concerned with sources ofpressure at work for seafarers andnormative groups are shown in Table10.0. Differences between theoccupational groups on these measuresare shown in Appendix 4 (Figures 4a-d).Individual comments from seafarers(Appendix 7) are used when appropriateto provide some explanation fordifferences identified.

The scores for sources of pressure atwork measure the degree of demandassociated with each source. The score foreach source is the sum of the responses toa number of individual questions.Scoring is based on a six-point scaleranging from, very definitely is not ademand (scale = 1), to very definitely is ademand (scale = 6). A higher score for anoccupational group indicates a particularsubscale is a greater source of pressure atwork for that group.

10.1 SEAFARERS VSNORMATIVE GROUPSSeafarers reported a significantly higherlevel of pressure from all sources of workpressure than normative groups. Thesedifferences were notably higher on two ofthe subscales: relationships with othersand the home/work interface (Table 10.0).Given that for the duration of the voyageseafarers work and live in the same placewith the same people, it is not surprisingworkplace relationships are a greatersource of pressure for seafarers than shore-based workers. Difficulties with workplacerelationships are supported by seafarers’

86

comments which indicated that continualproblems with personal and professionalrelationships at sea create additional stresson some ships (Appendix 7).

The higher level of pressure for seafarersfrom the home/work interface supports aprevious maritime report (Foster &Cacioppe, 1986) detailing the problems ofthe home and away nature of seafaring forboth seafarers and their families. Thisissue is discussed more fully later in thissection.

10.2 OCCUPATIONAL GROUPCOMPARISONSOccupational groups reported a similarlevel of pressure from career andachievement and the home/workinterface. On all other sources of workpressure, the groups reported significantlydifferent levels of pressure.

The similar level of pressure reported byall groups for career and achievement(promotion prospects, redundancy issues)may indicate that the present uncertaintyin the Australian maritime industry hasimpacted across the whole industry.Comments from respondents elaboratedon this issue. Specifically, career prospectswithin the industry were influenced byissues such as the removal of cabotage,likelihood of redundancy, the reduction inthe number of ships in the Australianindustry and overall job security. Lack ofjob security has been previously shown tobe a high stressor for men working in theoffshore oil and gas industry (Sutherland& Cooper, 1986).

A common element of working at sea isthe transition between ship and shore andvice versa (home/work interface). It is

therefore not surprising that pressure fromthis source was similar for all at searegardless of their on board tasks (Table10.0).

Pilots generally reported a lower level ofpressure from all sources of work pressurethan other groups (Table 10.0). This maysimply be due to the shorter time spent onany one particular ship by pilots andtherefore, a lower degree of involvementin organisational and personal issues inthe workplace. Group differences areshown graphically in Appendix 4 (Figures4a-d).

The group differences shown inworkplace relationships were chieflyrelated to officers, particularly masters/mates who reported greater pressure,and pilots who reported less pressurefrom all sources of work pressure (Table10.0). Respondents comments indicatedpersonal and professional relationships(often centered on union politics) were aconstant source of stress on some ships.Moreover, in some cases relationships atsea were further strained by the lack ofcommitment and poor attitudes of someemployees (Appendix 7).

Comparisons with similar data fromshore-based workers (Cooper et al., 1994)suggests that seafarers experiencesignificantly more pressure frommanager/worker roles and relationshipswith others (Appendix 4, Figures 4b & c).There is also evidence that industryreorganisation has the potential to impactnegatively on manager/workerrelationships (Saksvik & Forseth, 1996).The recent reform and differences foundin the Australian maritime industry mayexplain some of the stress from these

87

sources between shore and sea-basedmanagers. By comparison with shore-based managers, seafarers reported higherstress from relationships with others(Appendix 4, Figure 4c ). This finding mayreflect the level of managerial trainingprovided in the maritime industry or lackthereof, and the need for managerialtraining opportunities in line withchanges in the industry and a shift awayfrom more traditional concepts ofmanagement on board ships. A number ofcomments from seafarers raised concernwith the lack of training offered tomaritime employees whose work involvesa considerable managerial role.

10.3 RELATIVE IMPORTANCEOF SOURCES OF PRESSUREAT WORKBy scaling the OSI scores, the differentsources of pressure were rankedaccording to their impact on the entiremaritime sample and each of the fouroccupational groups. Table 10.1 showsthe ranked OSI scores for each of thesources of pressure at work for the entiremaritime sample. Data relating todifferent occupational groups arepresented in Appendix 4 (Tables 4a-d).

For the entire maritime sample and for eachoccupational group, the home/workinterface was notably the most stressfulaspect of their work. For all seafarers theranked score for the home/work interfacewas notably higher than other rankedscores. The considerably higher ranking forthe home/work interface also applied toeach occupational group (Appendix 4).Factors intrinsic to the job (tasks, hours,variety, keeping up with technology) wasranked as the second most prominentsource of pressure at work.

Pressure associated with the home/workinterface has been extensively referred toin comments from seafarers, and thelargest percentage of comments onindustry wide issues related to thissource of pressure. Problems centredaround the adjustments required by allparties (seafarers and families) duringthe transition from ship to shore and viceversa. Comments describe how tensionbuilds during the week before theseafarer leaves home, and after returninghome, 7 to 10 days are required in somecases to wind down and settle into familylife again. Time is also needed for thefamily to readjust to the presence of theseafarer again. Seafarers’ comments alsoclearly emphasised the important role astable family life ashore has in reducingstress and increasing job satisfaction atsea (Appendix 7).

Previous maritime reports on UKseafarers (Shipley & Cook, 1980) and dataon the wives and families of Australianseafarers (Foster & Cacioppe, 1986)support the findings related to thedifficulties of transition between ship andshore identified previously, as animportant source of stress. Suggestions

Table 10.1: Ranked OSI scores onsources of pressure at work for the entiremaritime sample. Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Seafarers

Home/work interface 62.7 (0.4)

Factors intrinsic to the job 52.9 (0.4)

Organisational structure 52.7 (0.4)

Relationships with others 48.9 (0.4)

Managerial role 46.7 (0.4)

Career and achievement 46.3 (0.3)

88

from seafarers on how to help overcomethese difficulties related to:

(i) Occasionally having wives andfamilies at sea;

(ii) Arranging family visits to ships tosee the workplace;

(iii) Producing a video showing workingand living at sea; and

(iv) Having a support officer in theshipping company or otherorganisation qualified to assist withproblems of family stress in theabsence of the seafarer.

However, it should be noted that anorganisation (Seafarers’ Assistance Service)does exist in Australia which provides freecounselling to seafarers and their familiesfor work and home-related problems. Itwould appear from some of the findings inthe present study that greater promotion ofthis program is required to increase theawareness of the services available toseafarers and their families.

Some Australian shipping companieshave initiated wives support groupsenabling communication with othersashore in similar situations, and similarprograms are used overseas in the UnitedKingdom. For instance, a communitysupport structure “Watch Ashore” hasbeen established to provide back up andfocus for seafaring families in the UnitedKingdom. In addition, an examination ofsupport programs utilised by organisationsoperating in other home and away remotesituations such as the military and miningindustries may have application to themaritime situation.

Other highly ranked sources of pressurewere factors intrinsic to the job, andorganisational structure. Commentsindicated that hours of work and the

amount of extra work was a source ofstress. This was particularly problematicwhen extra paperwork for the shore officewas required on completion of normal shifttime by some departments. Commentsrelating to organisational structure chieflytargeted shore management and the lack ofproper managerial and consultativeprocedures by some companies. Forexample, problems with shoremanagement mostly related to poorcommunication and planning, lack oftechnical support, lack of emotionalsupport, and delay in implementingcorrect procedures for handling dangerouscargo. In many cases, advancedcommunication technology has enabledshore management tasks to be transferredto ships without any increase in resourcesor additional training (Appendix 7).

10.4 OTHER FACTORSINFLUENCING SOURCES OFPRESSURE AT WORKThis section examines the contribution tothe sources of pressure at work fromfactors previously identified in theresults (i.e. industry specific, health andlifestyle, demographic, medical). Detailsof the statistical procedures used in theanalysis are shown in Appendix 1. Thefactors which contributed a significantindependent association with each of thesources of work pressure (rankedaccording to their impact) for the entiremaritime sample are shown in Table 10.2.The factors in Table 10.2 are those whichwere found to be significantly associatedwith the sources of work pressure thatremain significant (p < 0.01) after beingincluded in a stepwise regressionanalysis. Group data are shown inAppendix 4 (Tables 4e-j).

89

10.4.1 All seafarersStatistical modelling techniques wereapplied to identify those factors mostclosely associated with the differentsources of work pressure. Data in Table10.2 indicate that a substantial variance(ranging from 22-55%) in all of thesources of pressure at work isattributable to chiefly industry specificfactors; (i.e. long working hours,weather, missing home, hardships at sea).

Moreover, long working hours are thehighest ranked of the contributing factorson five of the six subscales and accountfor over half of the variability from all thecontributing factors on each of thesesubscales (Table 10.2).

Of the factors contributing to 44% of thevariance in the degree of pressure fromthe home/work interface, missing homeaccounted for 38% of the variance on thissubscale (Table 10.2). Previous maritime

Home/workInterface

OrganisationalStructure

Career andAchievement

Factors Intrinsicto the Job

Relationshipswith Others

ManagerialRole

54.7% # 42% # 33.8% # 24.3% # 22.3% # 44% #

# = percentage contribution of the variance by listed factors

Table 10.2: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced at work (ranked by magnitude ofcontribution), for the entire maritime sample.

1. Long workinghours(38.5%)

2. Weather

3. Change inthe industry

4. Hardships

5. Stressfrequencyat sea

6. Group

7. Missinghome

8. Broken rest


2.Weather

3.Broken rest

4.Change inindustry

5.Stressfrequency

6. Hardships atsea

7. Group

8.Nutritionexcuses

9.Sleep type atsea

10.Stress type atsea


2.Sleep type atsea

3.Missing home

4.Hardships atsea

5.Stress typeat sea

6. Group

7. Change in theindustry

8.Weather

9.Nutritionexcuses

10. Age


2. Missinghome

3. Hardships atsea

4. Age


6. Nutritionexcuses

7. Stress typeat sea


2.Hardshipsat sea


4.Change inthe industry

5.Missinghome

6. Group

7. Age

1. Missinghome(38.2 %)

2.Stressfrequencyat sea

3.Age

4.Nutritionexcuses

5 Long workinghours

6. Marital

7. Hospitalisation

8. Drug freefunctioning

90

data has also substantiated thecontributing role of missing home tooccupational stress while working at sea.In a review of studies investigatingoffshore industries, (Sutherland & Flin,1989) the most apparent factorcontributing to occupational stress wasthe separation from family (missinghome) and social networks. Commentsin this report pointed out the difficultieswith missing home and worry for lovedones while working at sea (Section 7).

10.4.2 Occupational GroupsStatistical models were developed foreach group showing the factorscontributing to sources of pressure atwork (Appendix 4, Tables 4e-j). Thegroup models revealed a similar trend tothe model for all seafarers; that is, chieflyindustry specific factors (long workinghours, broken rest and missing home)contributed to the variance in the sourcesof work pressure for each occupationalgroup.

The appearance of long working hours asthe highest ranked contributor on manyof the scales (including organisationaland personal scales) is consistent withthe appearance of long working hours inthe model for all seafarers. This suggestsissues associated with the hours of worksuch as the amount of rest, impacts on alloccupational groups.

10.5 SUMMARYWhile direct comparisons with non-seafaring industries should beinterpreted with caution, the results ofthis section show seafarers reportsignificantly more pressure from all

sources of work pressure than shown bynormative groups surveyed with the OSI.This may partly relate to the isolationand unique environment encounteredwhile working and living at sea.Seafaring groups experienced a similarlevel of pressure associated with careerand achievement and the home/workinterface; however on all other sources ofpressure at sea, the groups differedsignificantly. These differences arepossibly due to their divergentdemographic backgrounds and differingwork roles and responsibilities at sea.

The greatest source of pressure at workfor the entire maritime sample and eachoccupational group was the home/workinterface. Chiefly industry specific factors(long working hours and missing home)contributed to the variance in the sourcesof work pressure for the entire sampleand each occupational group. Thesefindings clearly suggest that a closerexamination of long working hours andthe limited rest breaks needs to occur.Strategies designed to address longworking hours, work scheduling(including rest breaks) and minimise theproblems of missing home may impactsubstantially on sources of pressure andaccompanying stress experienced byseafarers.

91

SECTION 11

SOURCES OF JOB SATISFACTION

Achievement value and growth

Job itself

Organisational design and structure

Organisational process

Personal relationships

Overall job satisfaction


92

Level ofStatistical

Significance1



Table 11.0: Sources of job satisfaction for normative groups, the entire maritimesample and four occupational groups. Values are mean (SEM).


1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically significant difference

between the groups after adjusting for age differences, ns = not significant at p < 0.01 level.

**a = significant difference (p < 0.01) between Australian seafarers and normative data, ns= notsignificant.

# Normative groups: Data are collected from 22 different groups of workers including white andblue collar workers involved in normal hours and shiftwork (n = 7000-8000).

Achievement, value 21.3 21.6 22.9 22.6 22.8 19.9and growth (0.1) (0.1) ns (1.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) ***

Job itself 16.3 15.1 16.8 15.7 15.7 14.4 (0.0) (0.1) **a (0.7) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) ***

Organisation design 16.4 16.1 19.6 16.6 16.4 15.7and structure (0.0) (0.1) ns (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) ***

Organisational 15.3 14.8 18.8 15.5 15.9 13.8process (0.0) (0.1) **a (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) ***

Personal 11.6 10.6 12.6 10.7 10.7 10.5relationships (0.0) (0.1) **a (0.6) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) ns

Overall job 82.1 77.8 22.8 19.7 19.7 18.5satisfaction (0.2) (0.5) **a (4.2) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) ***

93

Definitions of the measures identifiedunder sources of job satisfaction are asfollows:

• Achievement value and growth -“measures how an individualperceives their current scope foradvancement - career opportunities,value of your efforts, develop andgrow in the job, utilisation of skill levelof employees”.

• Job itself - “measures the satisfactionexperienced with the type and scopeof job tasks - actual job, level ofsecurity, kind and amount of work”.

• Organisation design and structure -

“measures the satisfaction with severaldifferent structural aspects oforganisations - communication ofinformation around the organisation,implementation of change, conflictresolution, overall structure of theorganisation”.

• Organisational process - “measuresthe satisfaction with internal processeswithin an organisation - processes forpromotion, motivation in the job, styleof supervision, involvement indecision making, amount of freedomand flexibility in the job”.

• Personal relationships - “measuresthe satisfaction with interpersonalcontact within an organisation -relationships with others at work,identification with the public image ofthe organisation, the organisationalclimate or feel about the organisation”.

• Overall job satisfaction - “measuresthe satisfaction with the job as a whole- personal and organisational issues.”

Results concerned with sources of jobsatisfaction are shown in Table 11.0.Differences between the occupationalgroups on these measures are shown inAppendix 5 (Figures 5a-e). Individualcomments from seafarers (Appendix 7)are used when appropriate to providesome explanation for the differencesidentified.

The scores for sources of job satisfactionmeasure the degree to which individualsreport being satisfied with the differentaspects of work. The score for eachsource is the sum of the responses to anumber of individual questions. Scoringis based on a six-point level ofsatisfaction scale ranging from verymuch dissatisfied (scale = 1) to verymuch satisfied (scale = 6). A higher scorefor an occupational group indicates agreater degree of satisfaction with aparticular aspect of work for that group.

11.1 SEAFARERS VS NORMATIVEGROUPSCompared with normative groups,seafarers scored lower on most measuresof job satisfaction. Although statisticallysignificant, these differences were smallwith the exception of the score for overalljob satisfaction on which seafarers scoredsubstantially lower (Table 11.0). Seafarersand normative groups reported similarscores on measures of achievement, valueand growth and organisational designand structure.

The generally lower level of satisfactionof seafarers is reflected in those factorswhich relate to job security,organisational change, influence over

94

decision making, and issues relating to

the kind and amount of work.Satisfaction with personal relationships

was also lower in seafarers and

comments from individuals highlightedthe difficulties associated with personal

and professional relationships on some

ships.

Differences on some aspects of job

satisfaction between seafarers and shore-

based workers may be partly related toproblems associated with shiftwork.

There is evidence which suggests that

many shiftworkers experience adecreased sense of well being which is

chiefly attributable to the shift work

schedule used (Ladou, 1982).

11.2 OCCUPATIONAL GROUPCOMPARISONSSignificant differences were foundbetween all groups on measures of jobsatisfaction with the exception ofpersonal relationships (Table 11.0). Groupdifferences are illustrated in Appendix 5(Figures 5a-e). The differences betweengroups were mainly accounted for by thelarge differences which existed betweenscores of satisfaction for pilots and crewmembers. Masters/mates andengineers had similar scores formost measures of job satisfactionwhich may reflect satisfactionwith on board roles associatedwith their level of responsibility,opportunities for decisionmaking and involvement inorganisational tasks. Overall,crew members reported lesssatisfaction than other groups inall aspects of job satisfaction

including scope for advancement andorganisational aspects of the workplace.

All groups recorded similar scores forsatisfaction with personal relationshipsand these scores were significantly lessthan those found in other industries. Thisfinding suggests that personalrelationships are a major source ofdissatisfaction for those who work at sea.

It is notable that seafarers were lesssatisfied with personal relationships inthe workplace than shore-basedmanagers, management consultants, bluecollar workers or those involved in highstress workplaces such as air trafficcontrollers (Cooper et al., 1994)(Appendix 5, Figure 5e).

11.3 RELATIVE IMPORTANCEOF SOURCES OF JOBSATISFACTIONBy scaling the OSI scores, the sources ofjob satisfaction were ranked according tothe degree of satisfaction reported withthe subscales. Table 11.1 shows theranked OSI scores for each of the sourcesof job satisfaction. Group comparisonsare shown in Appendix 5 (Tables 5a-d).

Table 11.1: Ranked OSI scores on sources ofjob satisfaction for the entire maritime sample.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Seafarers

Job itself 55.4 (0.5)

Organisational process 53.9 (0.5)

Personal relationships 51.2 (0.5)

Achievement, value and growth 51.1 (0.5)

Broad job satisfaction scale 50.7 (0.5)

Organisational design and structure 44.5 (0.5)

95

The entire maritime sample ranked the

job itself as the highest source of jobsatisfaction. This indicates that in spite of

the previously mentioned difficulties

associated with organisational structureand personal relationships, seafarers

experience satisfaction with the job itself.

In contrast to previous categories in whichthe first ranked factor was substantially

higher than the next ranked factor, the

ranking of sources of job satisfactionshowed all factors were more closely

grouped. The least satisfying aspect of

working at sea related to organisationaldesign and structure, which incorporates

issues of communication of information,

implementation of change, conflictresolution and overall structure of the

organisation.

Analysis of individual groups identifieddifferences in the relative importance of

the sources of job satisfaction.

Satisfaction from personal relationshipswas ranked lowest for officers and crew

members, which is consistent with

previous comments on this issue. It isnoteworthy that relationships with others

was a source of stress for these

occupational groups.

Satisfaction by seafarers with the job

itself has also been reported by Sparks

(1992). Eighty-eight percent of a sampleof 93 masters/mates and pilots indicated

that overall they were satisfied with

working at sea; however, they alsoreported varying levels of satisfaction

with organisational and personal aspects

of the workplace. Similarly, maritimepilots are mainly satisfied with their

work and enjoyed the responsibility and

authority associated with it. (Shipley,

1978; Berger, 1984).

Individual comments from seafarers

supported the finding that the job itself

was the most satisfying aspect ofworking at sea. Analysis of these

comments indicated that a greater

percentage of positive comments fromseafarers on job satisfaction related to the

opportunity to work at sea. Therefore,

although the unique nature of seafaringcontributes to a number of previously

identified stresses, it is also an important

source of job satisfaction. While seafarersindicated that the level of satisfaction

with working at sea was very much

dependent on the ship’s crew andofficers, in general seafarers enjoyed

working at sea and felt challenged by

many aspects of the job. Satisfactionwith working at sea may also be

associated with the long family history of

seafaring work for some employees andthe attraction of particular personality

types to seafaring. Therefore, those

working at sea may be retained in theindustry due to their attraction to, and

survival in, a unique working

environment.

Members of some departments

experienced more satisfaction with work

when they had been given greaterresponsibility (e.g. managing catering

budgets). In contrast, dissatisfaction was

in some cases related to poor utilisationof trade skills of employees, insufficient

time for proper training of junior

employees, rushed maintenance andextra duties involving quality assurance

procedures.

96

# = percentage contribution of the variance

Broad View ofJob Satisfaction

PersonalRelationships

OrganisationalProcess

AchievementValue & Growth

OrganisationalDesign &Structure

Job Itself

Table 11.2: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction (ranked by magnitude of variance), forthe entire maritime sample.

14.9% # 21.0% # 19.8% # 16.0% # 16.8% # 23.0% #

1. Change inthe industry(7.1%)



1.Change inthe industry(5.0%)

1. Stressfrequency atsea (8.3%)


2. Sleep typeat sea

2. Sleep typeat sea


2. Sleep typeat sea



3. Group 3. Group 3. Sleep typeat sea

3. Group 3. Nutritionexcuses

3. Sleep typeat sea

4. Stressfrequency atsea


4. Nutritionexcuses


4. Hardshipsat sea

4. Group

5 Longworkinghours

5. Group 5. Longworkinghours

5 Stress typeat sea

5. Nutritionexcuses

6. Smoking atsea

6 Longworkinghours

6. Nutritionexcuses

6. Age 6. Longworkinghours

7. Broken rest

8. Hardshipsat sea

7. Permanentrestriction onactivity

8. Broken rest

9. Hardships atsea

10.Weather




8. Broken rest

9. Missinghome

97

11.4 OTHER FACTORSINFLUENCING THE SOURCESOF JOB SATISFACTIONThis section examines the contribution tothe sources of job satisfaction fromfactors previously identified in theresults (i.e. industry specific, health andlifestyle, demographic, medical). Detailsof the statistical procedures used in theanalysis are shown in Appendix 1. Thefactors which contributed a significantindependent association with each of thesources of job satisfaction (rankedaccording to their impact) for the entiremaritime sample are shown in Table 11.2.The factors in Table 11.2 are those whichwere found to be significantly associatedwith the sources of work pressure thatremain significant (p < 0.01) after beingincluded in a stepwise regressionanalysis. Group comparisons are shownin Appendix 5 (Tables 5a-j).

11.4.1 All seafarersStatistical modelling techniques wereapplied to identify those factors mostclosely associated with the differentcategories of job satisfaction. The resultspresented in Table 11.2 indicate amoderate amount of the variance(ranging from 15-23%) was contributedto by similar industry specific issues.These include: change in the industry,hardships at sea, long working hours. Aconsistent finding was the high rankingfor change in the industry in five of thesix sources of job satisfaction. Moreover,change in the industry accounts forapproximately half of the variability fromall other contributing factors on thesefive scales (Table 11.2).

Similarly, sleep quality and stress werehighly ranked on many of the sources ofjob satisfaction. Coupled with earlierfindings in this survey of poor qualitysleep and undesirable stress levels(Sections 5), this finding suggests thatthese factors may be important sources ofjob satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

11.4.2 Occupational GroupsFor each occupational group the modelsshowing factors contributing to thesources of job satisfaction were similar tothe model for all seafarers. Details ofgroup models are shown in Appendix 5(Table 5e-j). That is, the models weremoderately strong and about half of thevariance in sources of job satisfaction wasattributable to industry specific orlifestyle factors. Consistent with themodel for all seafarers, change in theindustry, stress and sleep were highlyranked contributing factors in the groupmodels.

Given the stable and relatively olderworkforce which comprises theAustralian maritime industry (Section 3),it is not surprising that industry changeis ranked highly among the factorscontributing to the sources of jobsatisfaction. The effects of structuralchange on different age profiles issupported by recent findings. Legge andcolleagues (1996) reported that olderworkers in particular were mostconcerned with issues such as newtechnology and reductions in employeenumbers. It is possible that the concernsof maritime personnel may relate notonly to change itself, but also to the levelof preparation, training and support

98

provided when change is implemented.It has been shown that the negativeconsequences of organisational changecan be reduced when employees areprovided with appropriate levels oforganisational communication, strongleadership and consultation duringadjustment to change (Callan & Terry,1996).

Specific commentary on the impact ofchanges in the maritime industry wasprovided by analysis of individualcomments of seafarers. Issues such asfinancial security, removal of cabotage,uncertainty of employment/careerprospects were of concern to aconsiderable number of respondents.These issues were more frequently raisedby those who belonged to the unskilledsection of the workforce. It wassuggested that the results of uncertaintycontributed to low morale within theindustry and increased stress levels.Suggestions to improve job satisfactionmainly related to the provision ofincreased training opportunities oncomputerised equipment, andimprovement in administrative andmanagement procedures.

11.5 SUMMARYIn general seafarers were less satisfiedwith most sources of job satisfaction thanshore-based workers. The mostsatisfying source of job satisfaction wasfound in the job itself suggesting thatseafarers generally enjoyed some of theunique characteristics of life at sea, theirwork tasks, workload and job security.Varying degrees of satisfaction wereassociated with organisational and

personal aspects of the workplace. Asubstantial amount of the variance in jobsatisfaction was contributed by industryspecific factors, particularly change in theindustry and lifestyle factors such assleep and stress. While it isacknowledged that industry change isinevitable, appropriate training andsupport during adjustment phases mayminimise its negative impact on manysources of job satisfaction.

99

SECTION 12

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ILL HEALTH

Mental ill health

Physical ill health


100

Mental ill health 55.5 52.7 49.2 52.0 53.3 52.8(0.1) (0.3)**a (1.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) ns

Physical ill health 29.8 31.1 24.7 29.4 31.2 31.9(0.1) (0.2)**a (1.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) ***

Level ofStatistical

Significance1



Table 12.0: Mental and physical ill health for normative groups, the entiremaritime sample and four occupational groups. Values are mean (SEM)


1 Level of statistical significance: *** = p < 0.001 represents a statistically

significant difference between the groups after adjusting for age

differences, ns = not significant at p < 0.01 level.

**a = significant difference (p < 0.01) between Australian seafarers and

normative data, ns= not significant.

# Normative groups: Data are collected from 22 different groups of

workers including white and blue collar workers involved in normal hours

and shiftwork (n = 7000-8000).

101

Definitions of the measures of mentaland physical ill health are as follows:

• Mental ill health - “focuses on anindividual’s emotional well-being”.

• Physical ill health - “refers to thefrequency of occurrences of physicalproblems”.

The scores for mental and physical illhealth are shown in Table 12.0.Differences between the occupationalgroups on these measures are shown inAppendix 6 (Figures 6a & b). Individualcomments from seafarers (Appendix 7)are used when appropriate to providesome explanation for the differencesidentified.

The scores for mental ill health measurethe degree to which feelings andbehaviour are affected by perceived jobpressure over the last three months. Thescore for mental ill health is the sum ofthe responses to a number of individualquestions. Scoring is based on a six-point scale ranging from, very negative(scale = 1) to very positive (scale = 6). Ahigher score on mental ill health for aparticular group indicates that there is alower sense of emotional well-being, forexample seafarers or a particularseafaring group feel more anxious ordepressed.

The scores for physical ill healthmeasure the frequency of occurrence ofphysical symptoms over the last threemonths. The score for physical ill healthis the sum of the responses to a numberof individual questions. Scoring is basedon a six-point scale ranging from never(scale = 1) to very frequently (scale = 6).A higher score on physical ill health

indicates the frequent occurrence ofailments for all seafarers or a particularseafaring group.

12.1 SEAFARERS VSNORMATIVE GROUPSData in Table 12.0 shows that comparedwith normative groups, seafarers scoredsignificantly lower on mental ill healthand higher on physical ill health. Themental health score indicates that thepressure at work perceived by seafarersaffects their feelings and behaviour to alesser degree than normative groupsworking ashore. In contrast, the physicalill health score indicates seafarers reporta higher frequency of physical healthproblems than normative groups.

It is well established that a positiveoutlook at work reflects better lifeadjustment and better work output andefficiency (Barnes, 1984). The morepositive self-reported mental health ofseafarers as a whole was in contrast to asurvey of Polish seafarers whichidentified neuroses as a major healthproblem. It was also identified that thedevelopment of neurosis occurred as afunction of time spent at sea rather thanan individuals age (Filikowski, 1989).Furthermore, mental disorders anddiseases of the nervous system were thesecond most prevalent cause ofrepatriation behind diseases of thecirculatory system in Polish seafarers(Tomaszunas & Mroziski, 1990). Directcomparison of the combined results of allseafarers in the present investigationwith these studies however is difficult, asindividual group differences may bemasked by this process.

102

12.2 OCCUPATIONAL GROUPCOMPARISONSAs shown by Table 12.0 all occupationalgroups reported similar levels of mental illhealth problems, with the lower score forpilots borderline in statistical significance.

The differences in physical ill healthbetween the groups was chiefly related tothe lower score for pilots and the higherscores for engineers and crew. The higherscore for these groups may be related tothe nature of their work and the relativeinfluence of environmental hardships onthese workers (Section 9). Additionally, thecompromised health behaviours(increased smoking and drinking, anddecreased exercise) of these groups(Section 5) may help explain some of thegroup differences in physical health.

There is some indication in the literaturethat the mental health of marine officersmay be compromised when comparedwith army officers. For instance, when agroup of merchant marine officers wascompared with army officers, the marineofficers had a higher incidence ofdisturbed thought processes. The authorsof the study suggested the differencesbetween army and marine officersreflected the higher prevalence ofoccupational stress amongst the mariners(Barnes, 1983).

Comparisons of mental ill health scoreswith other specific groups of shore-basedworkers are shown in Appendix 6 (Figure6a). Data indicated scores for the entiremaritime sample and the seafaringoccupational groups suggested a lowersense of emotional well-being than shore-based workers employed in the areas of

management or shiftwork. Physical illhealth scores for seafarers were also moreapparent than groups of shore-basedworkers from either management or bluecollar sectors (Appendix 6, Figure6b)(Cooper et al., 1994).

12.3 OTHER FACTORSINFLUENCING MENTAL ANDPHYSICAL ILL HEALTHThis section examines the contribution tothe sources of mental and physical illhealth from factors previously identifiedin the results (i.e. industry specific, healthand lifestyle, demographic, medical).Details of the statistical procedures used inthe analysis are shown in Appendix 1. Thefactors which contributed a significantindependent association with each of thesources of mental and physical ill health(ranked according to their impact) for theentire maritime sample are shown in Table12.1. The factors in Table 12.1 are thosewhich were found to be significantlyassociated with the sources of workpressure that remain significant (p < 0.01)after being included in a stepwiseregression analysis. Group comparisonsare shown in Appendix 6 (Tables 6a & b).

12.3.1 All SeafarersStatistical modelling indicated that sixfactors accounted for 15.4% of the variancein mental ill health (Table 12.1). Thesefactors were chiefly industry specificfactors such as long working hours,missing home and change in the industry(in that order). Notably, the highest rankedof these factors, long working hours,accounted for about half of the variancefrom all other contributing factors.

103

A larger array of factors were identifiedas independent contributors to physicalill health and accounted for 43% of thevariance (Table 12.1). These factors werechiefly lifestyle factors such as sleep typeat sea, nutrition excuses, hardships at seaand stress type at sea (in that order).Notably, sleep type (including qualityand duration) at sea was the highestranked of the contributing factors andaccounted for 20% of the variance fromall contributing factors. This datahighlights the importance of adequate

sleep with respect to physical ill health.Coupled with earlier results showingpoor sleep quality and relatively highstress levels, this finding amplifies theneed for more careful consideration ofthe sleep patterns of seafarers. It is alsonotable that food-related factors such asnutritional attitude and some food habitsappeared as contributors to physical illhealth. Previous findings (Sections 6 & 7)indicate some compromised food habitsat sea and the issue may warrant furtherinvestigation.

Mental Ill health Physical Ill health

15.8% # 43% #

1. Long working hours (8.8%) 1. Sleep type at sea (20.5%)

2. Missing home 2. Nutrition excuses

3. Change in the industry 3. Hardships at sea

4. Number of illnesses 4. Stress type at sea

5. Age 5. Smoking at sea

6. Broken rest 6. Permanent restriction on activity

7. Missing home

8. Number of illnesses

9. Fibre at sea

10. Fat at sea

11. Stress frequency at sea

12. Change in the industry

13. Drug free

14. Medications

15. Long working hours


Table 12.1: Factors contributing significant independent association with scoresmeasuring mental and physical ill health (ranked by magnitude of variance) forthe entire maritime sample.

104

12.3.2 Occupational GroupsFor each occupational group the modelsshowing the factors contributing tomental and physical ill health are shownin Appendix 6 (Tables 6a & b). Themodels for each group are consistent inthe type and degree of contribution offactors influencing the mental andphysical ill health for the entire sample.

12.4 SUMMARYStatistical modelling to determine thestrength of the contributing factors tomental ill health indicated that the keyfactors were industry specific, in particular

long working hours. In contrast, applica-tion of the same modelling procedures tophysical ill health indicated that chieflylifestyle factors such as sleep quality andstress contributed more strongly to thevariance. These findings suggest the needfor further investigation of both workinghours and sleep quality across the industryto determine the precise nature and extentof these problems. Such investigation mayfacilitate the implementation of strategiesto address these issues and in turn contrib-ute to improvement of both the mental andphysical health of seafarers.

105

SECTION 13

OVERALL SUMMARY - PARTS A & B

106

13 OVERALL SUMMARYA comprehensive survey of Australianseafarers was undertaken to develop aprofile of the health status, health-related behaviours and occupationalstress within the industry.

The sample, representing pilots,masters/mates, engineers and crew,consists of more than 1800 responses.Occupational and demographic resultsindicated the Australian seafaringworkforce was relatively older, almostentirely male and predominantly ofAustralian birth. The workforce wascharacterised by a high degree ofstability reflected both in the long yearsof service in the industry, and years inpresent working positions. Additionally,differences in the socio-economic andeducational backgrounds of theoccupational groups indicated a highdegree of complexity within theworkforce.

The self-reported health status ofAustralian seafarers was generallyconsistent with that of Australianpopulation data, with the exception ofblood pressure which was higher. Withinthe industry, auditory disease was moreprevalent among engineers and crewmembers than other groups, which isconsistent with previous maritimereports.

Generally, seafarers displayed greaterlevels of health-compromisingbehaviour than the Australianpopulation. While working at sea aconsiderable proportion of seafarerssmoked, about one-third exceeded theNHF recommended limits for alcohol

consumption, and a high percentage ofseafarers did not meet NHF guidelinesfor exercise. Compared with the limiteddata for other maritime studies, theAustralian seafarer’s health-relatedbehaviour was either better or similar.

The quality and duration of sleep wasreported as being fair to very poor;approximately half the workforcereported less than six hours sleep eachday. Those employees involved inwatchkeeping and on call situationsappeared to be more affected by poorsleep than others at sea. All groups ofseafarers reported occasional to frequentstress which often ranged betweenmoderate and high levels. Time availablefor relaxation at sea appeared to bedirectly related to the on board tasks ofthe groups. In comparison with time atsea, when returning ashore on leave,seafarers reported improved sleep, lessstress and more time for relaxation.

Additionally, the data revealednutritional habits were compromisedsomewhat with seafarers consumingmore fat and sugar while at sea. Theresults for health and health-relatedbehaviour indicate that the impact ofinappropriate patterns of behaviourwhile at sea requires closer examination.

A comprehensive survey of theoccupational stress experienced by allmaritime personnel has not previouslybeen attempted. Therefore, directcomparisons in workplace stressbetween this study and other maritimeinvestigations is difficult. As such, theresults have been compared with thosederived from different occupational

107

groups previously surveyed using theOSI. Normative group data was basedon the combined results from 22different groups of white and blue collarworkers producing a sample size ofbetween 7000 and 8000.

The results indicate that when comparedwith data from other occupationalgroups, the seafarers surveyed in thisstudy generally experience morepressure from work, and are lesssatisfied with most aspects of the job.Additionally, they have fewer mentalhealth problems and poorer physicalhealth.

Differences in occupational stressbetween the four occupational groups inthis survey reflected the different tasksand responsibilities associated with eachparticular group’s role at sea. Forexample, engineers and crew foundrelatively greater stress from their workenvironment with problems of exposureto noise, heat and humidity. Similarly,those employees required to respond toalarms and on call situations such asengineers and watchkeepers reportedincreased stress as a result of brokensleep patterns.

Elements of seafaring which arecommon to all groups such as missinghome, bad weather and long workinghours were also important sources ofoccupational stress.

Considering the relatively older ageprofile and stability of the workforce, itis not surprising that a high percentageof seafarers found industry change to bea significant source of occupationalstress. Major industry reforms have

affected the seafarer’s physical and socialenvironment, and in some cases havealtered types of work, patterns of workand leisure and interpersonalrelationships with negativeconsequences.

On sources of job satisfaction seafarerswere less satisfied with their work thanshown by the results of similar analysesof shore based workers. Interestingly,seafarers derived considerablesatisfaction from working at sea, andmuch of the dissatisfaction with theirwork was associated with industryspecific issues.

The findings for mental ill healthsuggest that there are no differencesbetween occupational groups on thismeasure and demonstrated, as a whole,seafarers displayed a more favourableprofile than the normative group. Incontrast, there were differences betweengroups on levels of physical health withengineers and crews reporting morefrequent occurrences of ailments thanothers at sea.

109

REFERENCES

110

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1989-90).National Health Survey - Summary of ResultsLifestyle and Health, Cat. no. 4366.0 ABS,Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1991).National Health Survey - Summary ofResults, Cat. no. 4364.0 ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1992).National Health Survey - Summary ofResults, Cat. no. 4364.0 ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1993).Disability, Ageing and Carers Australia, 1993- Hearing Impairment, Cat. no. 4435.0 ABS,Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1993).Education and Training in Australia, Cat. no.4224.0 ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1995).Marriages and Divorces in Australia, Cat. no.3310.0 ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). TheEffects of Government Benefits and Taxes onHousehold Income, Cat. no. 6537.0 ABS,Canberra.

Barnes, B.L. (1983). Personality profile ofmerchant marine officers. Indian Journal ofClinical Psychology 10(2), 423-428.

Barnes, B.L. (1984). Relationship betweenmental health and job efficiency. ActaPsychiatrica Scandinavica 69, 466-471.

Berger, Y. (1983a). Preliminary Report onPort Phillip Sea Pilots No 2 Technical ReportDepartment of Behaviour and Brain-Behaviour Institute. Latrobe University.

Berger, Y. (1983b). Final Report on PortPhillip Sea Pilots No 3 Technical Report.Department of Behaviour and Brain-Behaviour Institute. Latrobe University

Berger, Y. (1984). Port Phillip Sea Pilots: AnOccupation at Risk No 1 Technical Report.Department of Behaviour and Brain-Behaviour Institute. Latrobe University

Bohnen, H.G.M. and Gaillard, W.K. (1994).The effects of sleep loss in a combinedtracking and time estimation task. Ergonomics37(6), 1021-1030.

Brown, W.D. (1990) Prevalence ofhypercholesterolemia in a maritimepopulation. Journal of Occupational Medicine32(7), 612-615.

Burr, R.G. (1984). Smoking among USNavy enlisted men: some contributingfactors. Psychological Reports 54, 287-294.

Callan, V.J. and Terry, D.J. (1996).Organisational change, the survivorsyndrome and public sector employees.Proceedings of the International Congress onStress and Health (p 7). Sydney, Australia.

Cochrane, A.J. (1994). Measurement inHealth Promotion: The relationship betweennutrition attitude and other health relatedvariables. Masters of OrganisationalPsychology. The University of Queensland.

Cooper, C.L., Sloan, S.J. and Williams, J.(1988). Occupational Stress Indicator:Management Guide (NFER-Nelson),Windsor.

Cooper, C.L. and Williams, J. (1991). Avalidation study of the OSI on blue collarsample. Stress Medicine 7, 109-112.

Cooper, C.L. and Bramwell, R.S. (1992). Acomparative analysis of occupationalstress in managerial and shopfloorworkers in the brewing industry: mentalhealth, job satisfaction and sickness. Workand Stress 6 (2), 127-138.

Cooper, C.L., Sloan, S.J. and Williams, J.(1994). Occupational Stress Indicator: DataSupplement. (NFER-Nelson), Windsor.

Cronan, T.A., Conway, T.L. and Kaszas,S.L. (1991). Starting to smoke in the navy:when, where and why. Social Science andMedicine 33(12), 1349-1353.

Dyer-Smith, M.B.A. (1993). The socialconditions of seafaring. The missions toseamen. World Conference, Derbyshire, UK.

Dyer-Smith, M.B.A. and Stein, M. (1993).Human resourcing in the European marineindustry. Revue European de PsychologieApplique. 43(1), 5-10.

Filikowski, J. (1989). Changes in the stateof health of seamen induced by theirworking environment. Bulletin of theInstitute of Maritime and Tropical Medicine-Gdynia 40(1-2), 41-49.

111

Fisher, C.D. (1993). Boredom at work: Aneglected concept. Human Relations 46(3),395-417.

Fisher, M.W. and Read, R.S.D. (1987).Dietary Patterns of Shiftworkers,Proceedings of the Nutrition Society ofAustralia, 12, 61-62.

Foster, D. and Cacioppe, R. (1986). Whenhis ship comes home: The stress of theAustralian seafarer’s partner. Australian &New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy. 7(2),75-82.

Haslam, D.R. (1982). Sleep loss, recovery sleep,and military performance, Ergonomics 5(2):163-178.

International Convention on Standards ofTraining, Certification and Watchkeepingfor Seafarers. (1995). International MaritimeOrganisation, London.

Jones, D.M. and Broadbent, D.E. (1987).Noise. In Salvendy, G. (Ed.) Handbook ofHuman Factors. John Wiley & Sons, NewYork.

Jinzhong, W. (1991). Diseases andaccidents among seafarers, experiencefrom China. Bulletin of the Institute ofMaritime and Tropical Medicine-Gdynia 42(1-4), 5-9.

Kelman, H.R. and Kavaler, F. (1990).Mortality patterns of American merchantseamen 1973-1978. American Journal ofIndustrial Medicine. 17, 423-433.

Krueger, G.P. (1989). Sustained work,fatigue, sleep loss and performance: areview of the issues, Work & Stress 3(2),129-141.

LaDou, J. (1982). Health effects ofshiftwork. Western Journal Medicine 137(6),525-530.

Legge, V., Cant, R. and O’Loughlin, K.(1996). Structural change as a factor inoccupational stress. Proceedings of theInternational Congress on Stress and Health,(p 28). Sydney, Australia.

Munnerley, G.M., Hogan, A., Krishnan,A.A. and Reed, V.R. (1992). Noise inducedhearing loss - profile of a sample of marineand power engineers. Unpublished material.

Naitoh, P. (1976). Sleep Deprivation inHuman Subjects: A Reappraisal, Wakingand Sleeping 1, 53-60.

National Heart Foundation of Australia(1996). Heart and Stroke Facts 1996 Report.National Heart Foundation of Australia,Canberra, Australia.

National Heart Foundation of Australia(1989). Risk factor prevalence study.Survey No 3. National Heart Foundation ofAustralia and Australian Institute of Health,Canberra, Australia.

National Wellness Institute (1994). PersonalWellness Report. Wisconsin USA.

Nitka, J. (1989). Evaluation of the psychicalstate of deck crew seamen with longperiod of service at sea. Bulletin of theInstitute of Maritime and Tropical Medicine-Gdynia 41(1-4), 53-57.

NUMAST (1990). Seafarers Hours: Time toAct. London: NUMAST, 4p.

Osler, D. (1997). Waking up to theNightmare of the Sleepless Ships’ Officer.Lloyd’s List.

Parker, A.W., Osborne, M.A., Sargent, L.,Forrester, C., Cook, M., Green, S. andBoyd, R. (1996). Health, stress and fatigue inoffshore maritime workers - a review.Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 58p.

Parkes, K.R. (1994). Sleep patterns,shiftwork, and individual differences: acomparison of onshore and offshorecontrol-room operators. Ergonomics 37(5),827-844.

Patel, T. and Wickramatillake, H. (1997).Analysis of Diseases and Injuries AmongAustralian Seafarers (1986-1996) with aReview of Maritime Health Literature.International Research Centre, SeafarersSafety and Occupational Health, Universityof Wales, Cardiff. Unpublished material.

Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L. and Williams,J. (1990). The validity of the occupationalstress indicator. Work and Stress 4, 29-39.

Saksvik, P.O. and Forseth, U. (1996). Theimpact of managerial behaviour on humanrelational aspects of reorganisations.Proceedings of the International Congress onStress and Health, (p 17). Sydney, Australia.

112

Saunders, M. and McCormick, M. (Eds.),(1992). Human Factors in Engineering andDesign. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.

Seafarers International Research Centre(SIRC) For Safety and Occupational Health(1996). Proceedings of A Research Workshop onFatigue in the Maritime Industry. University ofWales, Cardiff.

Shipley, P. (1978). A Human Factors Study ofMarine Pilotage. Department of Industry, UK.

Shipley, P. and Cook, T.C. (1980). Humanfactors studies of the working hours of UKships’ pilots. part 2: A survey of workscheduling problems and their socialconsequences. Applied Ergonomics 11(3),151-159.

Sparks, P.J. (1992). Questionnaire survey ofmasters, mates and pilots of a state ferriessystem on health, social and performanceindices relevant to shift work. AmericanJournal of Industrial Medicine 21, 507-516.

Sutherland, V.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1991).Personality, stress and accidentinvolvement in the offshore oil and gasindustry. Personality and IndividualDifferences 12(2), 195-204.

Sutherland, K.M. and Flin, R.H. (1989).Stress at sea a review of working conditionsin the offshore oil and fishing industries.Work and Stress 3(3), 269-285.

Sutherland, V.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1986).Man and accidents offshore - an examination ofthe costs of stress among workers on oil and gasrigs. Lloyds of London Press Ltd.Colchester, UK.

Tilley, A.J., Wilkinson, R.T., Warren, P.S.G.,Watson, B. and Drud, M. (1982). The Sleepand Performance of Shift Workers. HumanFactors 24(6), 629-641.

Tomaszewski, R., Dymnicki, P., Flasinski, J.,Kliz, J., Skwarlo, B., Kapiszka, T., Sokolowski,A., Goljan, J. and Winnicka, A. (1990). Studieson the risk of ischaemic heart disease infisherman, seafarers and dockers. Bulletin of theInstitute of Maritime and Tropical Medicine-Gdynia 41(1-4), 21-26.

Tomaszunas, S. and Mroziski, W. (1990).Diseases and injuries in Polish seafarersrepatriated from ships. Bulletin of the Instituteof Maritime and Tropical Medicine-Gdynia 42(1-4), 11-16.

Torner, M., Alstrom, C., Karlsson, R. andKadefors, R. (1994). Working on a movingsurface - a biomechanical analysis ofmusculoskeletal load due to ships’ motionsin combination with work. Ergonomics 37(2),345-362.

Torsvall, L. and Akerstedt, T. (1988).Disturbed sleep while being on call AnEEG study of the ship’s engineers. Sleep11(1), 35-38.

Torsvall, L., Castenfors, K., Akerstedt, T.and Froberg, J. (1987). Sleep at sea: a diarystudy of the effects of unattendedmachinery space watch duty, Ergonomics30(9), 1335-1340.

Vukelic, M., Kontosic, I. and Vlah, V.(1989). The influence of noise on bloodpressure in seamen on sea-going vessels.Bulletin of the Institute of Maritime andTropical Medicine-Gdynia 40(3-4), 151-162.

Warr, P. (1992). Job features and excessivestress. Prevention of mental ill health at work -A conference. Confederation of BritishIndustry, London.

Waugh, R. (1991). Occupational noiseexposure, hearing impairment andrehabilitation - an overview of the presentposition in Australia. In: Occupational noise-induced hearing loss: Prevention andRehabilitation. Sydney, NationalOccupational Health and SafetyCommission; Armidale: University of NewEngland.

113

APPENDIX 1

METHODS

114

SampleA census of 5080 seafarers in theAustralian maritime industry wasundertaken. Participants were employedon Australian ships operating in coastal,off shore and blue water areas. Thepopulation of seafarers included crewmembers represented by cateringattendants, cooks and integrated ratings.The sample of officers included masters,mates, chief engineers and engineers.Fifty-seven male marine pilots operatingin the Great Barrier Reef region ofQueensland were also included in thepopulation.

Further detail of the estimatednumbers in each of the jobcategories and the number andresponse percent from each ofthese categories is shown inTable 1a. However, the relativelysmall number of respondents insome work categories (Table 1a)limited detailed analysis ofdiscrete work groups. Thereforeon the advice of the steeringcommittee the job categorieswere condensed to fouroccupational groupsrepresenting pilots, masters/mates, engineers and crew.

Participation was voluntary andwritten informed consent wasobtained prior to thecommencement of the study. Inaccordance with NationalHealth and Research Committeeguidelines the study wasconducted with the approval ofthe Queensland University ofTechnology University ResearchEthics Committee.

PercentageJob Category EstimatedPopulation

Number ofResponses

Catering attendant * 601 103 17.0

Cook * 309 81 26.0

TIR * 42 4 9.5

PIR * 27 26 96.0

Bosuns mate/IR * 1527 312 20.0

Bosun CIR * 75 70 93.0

Deck ratings * 199 70 35.0

E R ratings * 73 14 19.0

Chief engineer 385 177 46.0

Engineer 725 348 48.0

Master 392 190 48.0

Mate 668 334 50.0

Pilot 57 29 50.0

Other 48

TOTAL 5080 1806

TIR=Trainee integrated rating, PIR=Provisionalintegrated rating, CIR=Chief integrated rating

ER ratings =Engine room ratings, IR=integrated rating,Pilots=Marine pilots, *= Crew

Table 1a: Workforce numbers (estimated) andresponse numbers by job category.

Questionnaire DistributionQuestionnaires were posted to homeaddresses (late May early June, 1996)using mailing lists supplied by theorganisations representing the fourparticipating groups (masters/mates,engineers, crew and pilots). The workingcircumstances of seafarers (at sea 8weeks and at home 8 weeks) madeworkplace administration ofquestionnaires impossible. Postaldistribution presented some problemssuch as outdated addresses and lost mailwhile at sea. Included with each

115

second section (Part B) included itemsrelating to feelings about work, copingstrategies used at work, as well asgeneral feelings and behaviour. Datafrom Part B enabled the identification offactors contributing to sources ofoccupational stress. The third sectionwas an open-ended section invitingmiscellaneous comments in relation tostress and fatigue at sea and ashore to berecorded. This section was a veryimportant source of information as thewide variation of opinion in the industrywas not able to be completely addressedin the more structured sections of thequestionnaire. Miscellaneous commentswere used to inform and illuminate themore structured responses derived fromthe questionnaire.

The complete questionnaire is shown inAppendix 8.

Statistical methodsCronbach’s alpha coefficients werecalculated to assess the reliability of eachof the aggregate scores used in the report(Appendix 2). The reliability coefficientsmeasure the extent to which the sameresponse would have been achieved ifthe questionnaire was administeredmore than once. Expressed another way,the coefficients identify the extent towhich the scale represents true ratherthan chance variation. An alphacoefficient of over 0.65 is generallyacceptable. For this study, it was quiteacceptable to use these scales; howeverscales dealing with emotional issueswere less reliable than those task-relatedissues (Appendix 2).

questionnaire was a letter of support forthe study from each of the participatingtrade union groups whose memberswere involved. An information pagewith the questionnaire explained thepurpose of the study and aspects ofconfidentiality and informed consent.

Reminder SystemTo improve response rates a remindersystem was implemented whichconsisted of two individual reminders toeach person (July and September, 1996)and an ongoing general remindersystem which included regular monthlyfacsimile messages to ships (organisedby AMSA). In addition, messagesencouraging participation were includedin union newsletters/magazines, andreminders at monthly meetings of theunions were given by union executivesand a member of the research team.

MeasuresBroadly, the questionnaire includeditems relating to demographicinformation, employment history,physical and mental health and sourcesof occupational stress.

Specifically, the first section (Part A) ofthe questionnaire included itemsassociated with age, job category,employment history, marital and incomestatus. This section also includedquestions relating to health status andhealth behaviours (i.e., smoking,drinking, relaxation, sleep, stress andnutrition habits). Data analysis enabled acomparison of health and lifestylebehaviours between sea and ashore. The

116

The response rate amongst the crewgroup was considerably lower than thatof the other groups. Consequently, thefinal sample contains proportionallyfewer crew members than in the totalcrew population. To ensure that thegroup was fairly represented in thesample, post-hoc weighting was used toensure the views of this group areproperly reflected in the sample.

PARTS A & B (Profiles, Health andLifestyle Behaviours andOccupational Stress)

For continuous measures, estimated

means and standard errors of the means

were calculated. Standard Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) techniques were used

to assess the significance of differences in

the mean scores observed in each

occupational group (pilots, masters and

mates, engineers and crew). When a

significant difference between the groups

was found, 99% confidence intervals

were calculated.

In the case of non-continuous data

(nominal or ordinal scaled), standard

Chi-squared techniques were used to test

for differences between the groups.

When age was expected to play a role in

the results (self-report health data,

health-related behaviour and

occupational stress), logistic regression or

ordinal regression analysis techniques

were used to ensure the comparison of

groups accounted for the age profiles of

the groups.

Repeated measures ANOVA, and

repeated measures logistic or ordinal

regression analysis techniques were used

to make comparisons between behaviours

at sea and behaviours ashore.

Standard statistical procedures were used

in handling missing values with a

distinction between single questions and

multi-item scores. Single item non-

response was no more than 5-10% and

these were dropped out of the analysis.

For the multi-item scores, if any of the

items comprising the score were missing

that response was omitted from the

analysis and was no more than 10%.

However, there is a need to consider the

possibility that those who did not

respond to a particular question may be

different in some way to those who did.

Whenever possible the present results

were compared to established scores for

which normative data was available.

However, in some cases direct

comparisons with other maritime groups

were not possible because of the absence

of industry specific data.

Post-Hoc Testing

The present study was an exploratory

investigation of a broad range of health

and work-related issues amongst a

complex workforce. The investigators

were always concerned about the

spurious results arising out of excessive

statistical hypothesis testing. Therefore,

in order to control the overall Type I error

rate it was decided not to undertake

post-hoc testing which would be routine

in a study with a narrower focus. It was

considered preferable to only informally

assess and make indicative judgement

117

where differences lay in a series of sub-

group values (e.g. occupational groups)

or in levels of other variables such as the

quality and duration of sleep and the

frequency and level of stress.

Factors Contributing toOccupational StressThe overall objective of this section wasto identify factors which might beassociated with the key elements ofoccupational stress in the industry;namely the sources of stress, strategiesseafarers use for coping with stress, andoverall job satisfaction. This enabledfactors to be identified which, ifmodified through some intervention,might lead to reduced occupationalstress, a greater use of effective copingstrategies, or higher job satisfaction inthe industry.

Specifically, the objectives of this sectionwere to:

(i) Identify the important factors whichmight be associated with the keyelements of occupational stress; and

(ii) To rank them in order of theirimportance.

The 19 Occupational Stress Indicator(OSI) scores used to measure the keyelements of occupational stress areshown in Table 1b.

The factors which might be associatedwith these scores, and thereforerepresent factors which might beamenable to intervention and result inimproved circumstances, are shown inTable 1c.

A two-stage modelling strategy wasused to achieve the objectives. Firstly,the statistical significance of the crudeassociations between each of the factorsin Table 1c, and the 19 OSI scores inTable 1b were calculated.

For each OSI score in Table 1b, the initialcollection of factors which weresignificantly associated with the score(p-value < 0.01) were identified. Theseare factors which are associated with theOSI scores but their number was quitelarge. Additionally, some of these affect

Factors intrinsic to the job Achievement, value & growth Mental ill health

Managerial role Job itself Physical ill health

Relationships with others Organisational design

Career and achievement Organisational processes

Organisational structure Personal relationships

Home/work interface

Sources of Pressureat Work

Sources of JobSatisfaction

Mental and PhysicalIll health

Table 1b: Key elements of OSI scores

Details of how these vary across occupational groups in the industry are presented in Part B.

118

the OSI score indirectly through theiraffects on other factors which also impacton the OSI score.

Hence, a second stage was needed toidentify the important factors from thisinitial collection and to estimate theirrelative contribution. For this the factorsin the initial collection were used in astepwise regression procedure whichselects those factors from the collectionthat best explain the OSI score, and ranks

Demographic

Details of how these vary across occupational groups in the industry are shown in the resultssection for Parts A and B.

Table 1c: Factors associated with the OSI scales.

Age

Marital

Health & Lifestyle Medical Industry specific

NHF guidelines foralcohol at sea

NHF guidelines forexercise at sea

Smoking at sea

Sleep type and durationat sea

Stress frequency andlevel at sea

Relaxation at sea

Sugar at sea

Fat at sea

Nutrition relevance

Pronutrition

Nutrition excuses

Food exploration

Drug free

Number of illnesses

Heart disease

Blood pressuredisease

Medication

Hospitalisation

Change in theindustry

Group

Long working hours

Missing home

Rest breaks

Weather

Hardships at sea

them according to their contribution. Theresults of this final stage are presentedfor the whole industry and for eachoccupational group in Tables in Part Band supporting material in Appendices4-6. The tables show the total amount ofthe variation in the OSI score explainedby the final collection of factors (as apercentage) and ranks them in order oftheir relative contribution.

119

APPENDIX 2

CRONBACH’S ALPHA VALUESFOR PARTS A & B

120

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is a measureof the internal consistency of thesubscales. The procedure is widely usedfor this purpose since it uses a range ofstatistical characteristics from the rawdata.

The following information is associatedwith questions relating to nutrition habitsand attitudes and drug use in Part A.

Values for Cronbach’s AlphaCoefficient for the food habits andattitudes and drug use andawareness (Part A)

Table 2c: Cronbach’s alpha for foodattitude variables

Attitude to Food Cronbach’s Alpha

Nutrition relevance 0.60

Pro nutrition 0.82

Nutrition excuses 0.77

Food exploration 0.74

Table 2a: Cronbach’s alpha for thefood habit variables at sea

Table 2b: Cronbach’s alpha for thefood habit variables ashore

Table 2d: Cronbach’s alpha drug scale

Drugs Cronbach’s Alpha

Q 1-13 0.49

Frequency of Eating Cronbach’s Alpha

Fibre 0.61

Sugar 0.60

Fat 0.61

Frequency of Eating Cronbach’s Alpha

Fibre 0.61

Sugar 0.63

Fat 0.70

121

Sources of Pressure at Work

Factors intrinsic to the job 0.71

Managerial role 0.76

Relationships with other people 0.72

Career and achievement 0.73

Organisational structure and climate 0.80

Home/work interface 0.80

Sources of Job Satisfaction

Satisfaction with achievement valueand growth 0.82

Satisfaction with the job itself 0.65

Satisfaction with the organisational designand structure 0.80

Satisfaction with personal relationships 0.62

Broad view of job satisfaction 0.72

Mental ill health 0.61

Physical ill health 0.85

Industry Specific Sources of Stress

Excessive noise 0.74

A hot working environment 0.74

Inadequate lighting 0.74

Level of humidity 0.74

Excessive gales (wind) 0.81

Bad weather 0.81

Being away from home for extended periods 0.73

Concern for loved ones ashore 0.73

Insufficient time with family/spouse/children 0.73

Being woken unexpectedly to deal witha problem 0.85

Unpredictable working hours 0.85

Long working hours 0.85

Inadequate rest breaks during trips 0.84

Being on call during rest breaks 0.84

Values for Cronbach’sAlpha Coefficient for theOccupational StressIndicator (Part B)The following informationrelates to questions from theOccupational Stress Indicator(Part B).

Cronbach’sCoefficient

AlphaOSI Scales

Table 2e: Cronbach coefficient alpha for OSI variables

123

APPENDIX 3

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC SOURCES OFSTRESS - GROUP COMPARISONS

124

The group comparisons relate to information presented in Section 9.This section shows group comparisons on industry specific sources of stress:- Environmental hardships at sea- Broken rest- Long working hours- Change in the industry

Broken RestThe groups experienceddifferent levels forstress from broken rest.

Har

dshi

ps (

Mea

n va

lues

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


Engineers Crew

A higher score for an occupational group indicates hardships at sea isa greater demand for a particular group.


Figure 3a: Environmental hardships at sea, by group.

All

Bro

ken

Res

t (M

ean

valu

es)

Figure 3b: Broken rest at sea, by group.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Engineers Crew

A higher score for an occupational group indicates broken rest is agreater demand for a particular group..


All

Hardships at SeaThere were significantdifferences between thegroups on the level ofstress associated withhardships at sea.

125

Long HoursThe groups experienced asimilar level of stress withlong working hours.

Long

Hou

rs (

Mea

n va

lues

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Engineers Crew

Figure 3c: Long working hours, by group.

All

A higher score for an occupational group indicates long hours are agreater demand for a particular group.

Change in the IndustryThere were significantdifferences between thegroups in the demandsfrom industry change.

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%


Engineers Crew


Figure 3d: Demands from industry change, by group.

All

126

Appendices 4-6 contain information which supports and extends thematerial presented in Sections 9-12.

This material presents graphically and in tabular form the results ofthe analyses of data for the different occupational groups. Specifically,the figures present the mean scores for the OSI scales for eachoccupational group together with the score representing the totalpopulation surveyed. In some instances examples of data derivedfrom similar surveys of other occupational groups are included forcomparative purposes.

In addition, the results of statistical modelling procedures applied toindividual group data are presented to:

• Estimate the relative importance of factors associated withoccupational stress from sources of work pressure, and sources ofjob satisfaction.

• Determine the extent to which other previously identified factors(industry specific, health and lifestyle, medical and demographic)contribute to sources of pressure at work, sources of jobsatisfaction and mental and physical ill health.

127

APPENDIX 4

GENERAL SOURCES OF PRESSURE ATWORK - GROUP COMPARISONS

128

The information in this appendix support results shown on the sources of pressure at work(Section 10).This section shows group comparisons for:- Sources of pressure at work- Relative importance of sources of pressure at work

- Factors contributing to sources of pressure at work

Factors Intrinsic to theJobThe groups experienced asignificantly different levelof pressure from factorsintrinsic to the job.

Officers (masters/matesand engineers) and crewreported a greater level ofpressure from factorsintrinsic to the job thanpilots. Pilots reported thelowest level of stress fromthis source.

Fac

tors

Intr

insi

c (M

ean

valu

es)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Engineers Crew

A higher score for an occupational group indicates factors intrinsic tothe job are a greater demand for a particular group.


Figure 4a: Factors intrinsic to the job, by group.

All

Middle & senior managers 33.5

Man

ager

ial R

ole(

Mea

n va

lues

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Engineers Crew

A higher score for an occupational group indicates managerial role is agreater demand for a particular group.


Figure 4b: Managerial role, by group.

All


Managerial RoleThe groups experiencedsignificantly differentlevels of pressure withmanagerial role.

Managerial role was agreater source of pressurefor officers than crew orpilots.

129

Relationships WithOthersThe groups experienced asignificantly different levelof pressure fromrelationships with others.

Masters/mates reportedmore pressure withworkplace relationshipsthan other groups; pilotsreported considerably lesspressure than others on thissubscale.

Rel

atio

nshi

ps w

ith O

ther

s (M

ean

valu

es)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Engineers Crew

A higher score for an occupational group indicates relationships withothers are a greater demand for a particular group.


Figure 4c: Relationships with others, by group.

All


Org

anis

atio

nal S

truc

ture

(M

ean

valu

es)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Engineers Crew

A higher score for an occupational group indicates organisationalstructure is a greater demand for a particular group.


Figure 4d: Organisational structure, by group.

All

OrganisationalStructureThe groups experienced asignificantly different levelof pressure fromorganisational structure.

Those spending longerperiods on the one ship(masters/mates, engineersand crew) reported agreater level of pressurewith organisationalstructure than pilots.

130

Relative Importance of Sources of Pressure at Work for EachOccupational Group

Variable Crew

Home work interface 65.0 (0.7)






Table 4d: Ranked OSI scores on sources of pressure at work for crew.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Engineers







Table 4c: Ranked OSI scores on sources of pressure at work for engineers.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Masters/Mates







Table 4b: Ranked OSI scores on sources of pressure at work for masters/mates.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Pilots







Table 4a: Ranked OSI scores on sources of pressure at work for pilots. Values aremean (SEM).

131

Other Factors Influencing Sources of Pressure at Work for EachOccupational Group


Masters/mates Crew

Table 4e: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced with factors intrinsic to the job(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups.

Engineers

58.3% #

1. Long working hours (42.4)%

2. Hardships at sea


4. Broken rest

5. Weather

6. Missing home


52.6% #

1. Long working hours (38.6%)

2. Hardships at sea


4. Weather

5. Missing home

6. Drug free

43.7% #


2. Weather

3. Hardships at sea

4. Missing home



Masters/mates CrewEngineers


Table 4f: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced with the managerial role (ranked bymagnitude of variance) for all groups.

51.4% #

1. Broken rest (36.8%)

2. Hardships at sea


4. Weather

5. Age

6. Stress frequency

40.7% #


2. Hardships at sea


4. Nutrition excuses

5. Weather


30% #

1. Hardships at sea (20.2%)

2. Broken rest


4. Weather




41.5% #

1. Broken rest (29.8%)

2. Hardships at sea

3. Stress type at sea


5. Missing home

35.3% #


2. Hardships at sea

3. Missing home



6.Nutrition excuses

26% #



3. Missing home


Table 4g: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced with relationships with others(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups

132


Masters/mates Crew

Table 4h: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced with career and achievement(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups

Engineers

58% #

1. Missing home (44.4%)


30.3% #


2. Missing home


4. Age


29.0% #



3. Age


5. Hardships at sea

6. Sleep type at sea

Pilots

24.6% #


2. Missing home

3. Age



Masters/mates CrewEngineersPilots


65.2% #

1. Long working hours(45.5%)

2. Missing home

47.8% #



3. Marital status

4. Hardships at sea


44.3% #




4. Age

41% #



3. Hardships at sea

4. Age

5. Permanent restrictionon activity

Table 4j: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced with home/work interface (rankedby magnitude of variance) for all groups.



Table 4i: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of pressure experienced with organisational structure(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups

45.2% #


2. Hardships at sea




6. Missing home

14.0%#

1. Change in the industry (14.0%)

31.8% #


2. Missing home




133

APPENDIX 5

JOB SATISFACTION - GROUPCOMPARISONS

134

The information in this appendix support results shown on the sources of jobsatisfaction (Section 11).

This section shows group comparisons for:

- The degree of satisfaction with sources of job satisfaction

- Relative importance of sources of job satisfaction

- Factors contributing to the sources of job satisfaction

Ach

ieve

men

t Val

ue &

Gro

wth

(Mea

n va

lues

)

0

5

10

15

20


Engineers Crew

Figure 5a: Satisfaction with achievement, value andgrowth, by group.

All

25

30

A higher score for an occupational group indicates achievement, valueand growth is more satisfying for a particular group.


Achievement, Valueand GrowthThere were significantdifferences between thegroups in the level ofsatisfaction withachievement, value andgrowth.

Pilots, masters/mates andengineers scored higher onthis measure than crewmembers. This suggeststhese groups perceivethere is more scope foradvancement within theindustry than crewmembers.

135

Job ItselfThe groups experienced asignificantly differentlevel of satisfaction withthe job itself.

Crew felt less satisfactionthan other groups with thejob itself such as type andscope of job tasks,including job security andthe amount of work. Pilotswere the most satisfiedwith the job itself;masters/mates andengineers were satisfied toa similar degree.

Job

Itsel

f (M

ean

valu

es)

0

5

10

15

20


Engineers Crew

Figure 5b: Satisfaction with the job itself, by group.

All

25

30

A higher score for an occupational group indicates the job itself , ismore satisfying for a particular group.


Organisation Designand StructureThe groups experiencedsignificantly differentlevels of satisfaction withorganisation design andstructure.

Pilots were more satisfiedthan others withorganisation design andstructure representingadministrative andmanagerial elements in theindustry. O

rgan

isat

iona

l des

ign

& s

truc

ture

(Mea

n va

lues

)

0

5

10

15

20


Engineers Crew

Figure 5c: Satisfaction with organisational designand structure, by group.

All

25

30

A higher score for an occupational group indicates organisational designand structure is more satisfying for a particular group.


136

Per

sona

l rel

atio

nshi

ps (

Mea

n va

lues

)

0

5

10

15

20


Engineers Crew

Figure 5e: Satisfaction with personal relationships,by group.

All

25

30

Management consultants 12.7 Middle& senior managers 12.8Brewery workers 11.4

Air traffic controllers 9.5

A higher score for an occupational group indicates personnalrelationships are more satisfying for a particular group.

Personal RelationshipsThere was no differencebetween the groups insatisfaction with personalrelationships.


Engineers Crew

Figure 5d: Satisfaction with organisational process,by group.

All

A higher score for an occupational group indicates organisationalprocess is more satisfying for a particular group.Statistically significant difference between the groups, p < 0.001.

Organisational ProcessThe groups experienced asignificantly different levelof satisfaction withorganisational process.

Crew members were lesssatisfied, and pilots moresatisfied with organisationalprocesses.

Org

anis

atio

nal p

roce

ss (

Mea

n va

lues

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

137

Table 5a: Ranked OSI scores for sources of job satisfaction for pilots.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Pilots




Organisation design and structure 58.5 (3.9)

Achievement, value & growth 56.4 (4.4)

Table 5b: Ranked OSI scores for sources of job satisfaction for Masters/masters.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Masters/Mates






Relative Importance of Sources of Job Satisfaction

Variable Engineers






Table 5c: Ranked OSI scores for sources of job satisfaction for engineers.Values are mean (SEM).

Variable Crew






Table 5d: Ranked OSI scores for sources of job satisfaction for crew.Values are mean (SEM).

138


11%#

1. Stress frequency at sea (5.8%)



13.3% #

1. Nutrition excuses (5.9%)




22.9% #





5. Permanent restriction on activity

6. Hardships at sea


Table 5e: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction with achievement, value and growth(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups

Factors Influencing Sources of Job Satisfaction



16.7%#



3. Hardships at sea



20.4% #






15.6% #




4. Hospitalisation

Table 5g: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction with organisational design & structure(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups.



17.4%#



3. Hardships at sea


21.7% #





17.5% #




4. Pronutrition


Table 5f: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction with the job itself (ranked by magnitudeof variance) for all groups.

139



19.7%#



3. Hardships at sea



18.0% #




11.4%#





Table 5i: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction with personal relationships (ranked bymagnitude of variance) for all groups.



17.3%#




4. Hardships at sea


22.4% #





22.9%#




4. Hardships at sea



Table 5j: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction with broad job satisfaction scale(ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups.

Table 5h: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring the degree of job satisfaction with organisational process (ranked bymagnitude of variance) for all groups.

Engineers Crew


11.6%#




17%#




4. Age


141

APPENDIX 6

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ILL HEALTH -GROUP COMPARISONS

142

The information in this appendix support results shown on mental and physical illhealth (Section 12).

This section shows group comparisons for:

- The mental and physical ill health

- Factors contributing to mental and physical ill health

Phy

sica

l ill

heal

th (

Mea

n va

lues

)

10

20

30


Engineers Crew

Figure 6b: Physical ill health, by group.

40

0

All

A higher score for an occupational group indicates the frequentoccurrence of ailments for a particular group.


Blue collar factor workers 27.8Middle & senior managers 27.8

Mental Ill HealthThe difference in mentalhealth between the groupswas not significant.

Although not reachingstatistical significance,pilots had fewer signs ofmental ill health than othergroups indicatingbehaviour was affected byperceived pressure fromthe job.

Physical Ill HealthThe groups experiencedsignificantly differentlevels of physical ill healthproblems.

Crew and officers reporteda similar frequency ofphysical problems;whereas pilots reportedfewer physical problems.

Men

tal h

ealth

(M

ean

valu

es)

20

40

60


Engineers Crew

Figure 6a: Mental ill health, by group.

80

0

All

Brewery workers 55.6Primary health care workers 53.6

Management consultants 49.3Middle & senior managers 48.6

A higher score for mental ill health indicates that there is a lower senseof emotional well being for a particular group.

143

Factors Contributing to Mental and Physical Ill Health for theOccupational Groups



Table 6a: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring mental ill health (ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups.

24.6% #

1. Sleeptype at sea (10.7%)


3. Missing home



6. Age


29.1% #



3. Broken rest


5. NHF guidelines for alcohol at sea

6. Nutrition excuse

41% #





5. Food exploration




Table 6b: Factors exhibiting a significant independent association with scoresmeasuring physical ill health (ranked by magnitude of variance) for all groups.

38.5% #

1. Sleep type at sea (22.7%)




5. Fat at sea


45.6% #



3. Number of illnesses



6. Drug free

7. Medication

25.3% #





5. Smoking at sea

6. Missing home

7. Sleep hours at sea

145

APPENDIX 7

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

146

After completing the questionnairerespondents were invited to offer furthercomments regarding their health, workor sources of stress. This section wasdivided into two parts: sea and ashore.

The purpose of the miscellaneouscomments in the open-ended section wasto capture additional information onsources of stress at sea and ashore notaddressed in the structured questions.The comments were used to illuminateresponses for the more structuredquestionnaire. The section also providedan opportunity for expansion onparticular issues previously addressed inthe questionnaire. Additionally, thecomments enabled the wide variationwithin the industry due to differences inship types, sea working areas, workpractices and occupational groups to berecorded. The comments depend verymuch on the type of ship, including itsoperation and construction, the harmonyon board, the sea area worked and theshipping company involved. The numberof seafarers who offered miscellaneouscomments is shown in Table 7a.

Overall, 56% of questionnairerespondents offered miscellaneouscomments in the open-ended section.

For analysis, comments were dividedinto the following broad areas: industry-wide, at sea or ashore. Within thesebroad areas, themes were identified andcomments then coded as negative,positive, suggestions or other.

Only comments that accounted for morethan 8% of total comments are shown.

The following sections show:-

(i) The percentage of negative andpositive comments industry wide, atsea and ashore;

(ii) The percentage of comments in eacharea from each of the occupationalgroups; and

(iii) A synopsis of the commentsindicating underlying issues on eachtopic.

Table 7b and 7c show the percentage ofpositive and negative comments. Thesecomments relate to additional sources ofstress industry-wide, at sea and ashore.

147

Industry-wide At sea

Table 7c: Percentage of positive comments industry wide, at sea and ashore.

Ashore

Job satisfaction (66.0%)

Remuneration (12.0%)

Shore management (10.3%)

Health (17.6%)

Recreation/relaxation (17.6%)

Communication with family (11.0%)

Recreation/relaxation (33.5%)

Relationships: wives/partners/children (25.3%)

Quality of sleep (10.5%)

Group Number

Pilots 14 50%

Masters/Mates 285 54%

Engineers 373 69%

Crew 341 44%

Total 1013 56%

Table 7a: Number of seafarers offering miscellaneous comments for the entiresample and four occupational groups.

Response percentage

Industry-wide At sea

Table 7b: Percentage of negative comments industry wide, at sea and ashore.

Ashore

Home/work interface (28.7%)

Demanning (14.2%)

Shore management (10.3%)


Work schedules/hours (13.7%)

Fatigue (12.9%)

Frying of food (10.0%)

Job commitment & attitude ofsome (8.0%)

On board relationships (8.0%)

Uncertainty (26.4%)

Relationships: wives/partners (15.4%)


148

INDUSTRY-WIDE

NegativeOn industry wide issues there were 894negative comments and 50 positivecomments. The highest percentage ofnegative comments related to sources ofstress related to the work/home interface(28.7%), demanning (14.2%) and shoremanagement (10.3%). All other categoriescovered less than 10%.

The sources of negative comments fromeach of the groups are shown below.

Pilots

The 30 negative comments from pilotschiefly related to the Australian MaritimeSafety Authority (AMSA) (40%),government regulation (20%),remuneration (17%) and uncertainty in theindustry (10%).

Masters/Mates

The 307 negative comments fromMasters/mates mostly related to work/home interface (28%), demanning (11.7%)and shore management (9.7%).

Engineers

The 294 negative comments fromengineers mostly related to work/homeinterface (22.4%), demanning (14.9%) andshore management (10.5%).

Crew

The 293 negative comments from crewmembers mostly related to work/homeinterface (35%), demanning (16.0%) andjob security/uncertainty (10.2%).

PositiveOverall, job satisfaction and remunerationaccounted for 66% and 12% of positivecomments, respectively. Job satisfactionalso had the highest percentage of positivecomments (50%) from masters/mates,engineers and crew.

SUGGESTIONSSuggestions on industry-wide issuesrelated to the work/home interface, onboard management, and other issues suchas further surveys for wives/families andspecific sections of the industry. Somerespondents raised concern regarding theconfidentiality of information provided inthis or further surveys.

The following section shows some of theunderlying issues relating to themiscellaneous comments.

Government RegulationSome respondents felt the need forgovernment to accept some responsibilityfor the stress and health of seafarers.

Shore ManagementThe concerns of many respondents aboutshore management related to difficultywith communication, planning (suddenrecalls to work), the consultation/decision making process and the extraworkloads placed on some officersassociated with office paperwork. Somerespondents highlighted the apparentlack of knowledge by shore managementof some specific working areas such asOffshore Oil and Gas. Respondents werealso concerned by the lack of action byshore management on health hazardsassociated with dangerous cargoes. Anumber of respondents indicated shoremanagement showed a lack of empathywith the stress levels experienced byemployees; employee stress appeared tobe considered by shore management aspersonal rather than contributed to byoccupational difficulties.

A few respondents indicated shoremanagement had been helpful inproviding relief from duty when suddenfamily illness had occurred.

149

(vi) Demanning impacted negatively onthe social life on board - fewer tosocialise with resulting in periods ofloneliness for some employees.

Job SatisfactionSeveral issues reduced job satisfaction:

(i) The poor utilisation of the tradeskills of employees;

(ii) The lack of continuity of personnelin particular areas (engine room)meant meaningful tasks weredifficult to assign; and

(iii) The appropriateness of having TIRcadets belong to the crews’ unionduring their training;

(iv) Over emphasis on union politics;

(v) On some ships on boardmanagement was out of touch -younger officers appeared to handlepersonnel problems moreappropriately;

(vi) Absence of input from the ship’smaster into crew selection;

(vii) No workable process wherebyunsatisfactory workers can beremoved from the system;

(viii) In some instances health standardsfor selection and termination ofemployment are breached;

(ix) The ship is an extension of theoffice; and

(x) Extra paper work additional tonormal duties is very taxing forofficers. Quality assurance wasidentified as the latest bureaucraticload.

Many respondents indicated working atsea is generally a rewarding career andjob satisfaction is very much dependenton the ship’s crew and officers and the

AMSANegative comments related to recentchanges in pilotage operations and theresulting uncertainty of income, pricecutting and safety issues for pilots.

Change in the Industry, JobSecurity and UncertaintyA number of respondents raised concernover major industry change and futurechange. Concern was expressed over:

(i) financial security;

(ii) cabotage;

(iii) long periods of unemployment and

(iv) no replacement for vessels as theyleave the industry.

The consequences of these issues related topoor industry morale, loss of hard earnedconditions and increased stress levels.

DemanningA large number of respondents raisedconcerns over demanning issues.Concerns related to:

(i) The achievement of demanningmostly on union/political groundsand not on workload levels;

(ii) Increased workloads on certaindepartments (e.g. insufficient staffwere available for propermaintenance);

(iii) Decreased crew sizes required abetter standard of training and thiswas not happening;

(iv) Not in all cases was the decrease increw size offset by advancedtechnology particularly in the olderships;

(v) Sufficient time to complete propermaintenance schedules (cost cuttingand safety) and train youngengineers;

150

harmony on board. Some respondentsindicated job satisfaction could beimproved by:

(i) The opportunity wives/families tojoin the ship sometimes, and

(ii) Further training for employees(computerised equipment,management, administrative).

Added responsibility had improved jobsatisfaction; responsibility for cateringbudgets had been rewarding. Thoseemployees who were in mobile phonerange benefited by the improved com-munication with home, and were therebymore satisfied with working at sea.

Work/Home InterfaceA large number of respondents indicatedpersonal or other problems at homeaffected work at sea and vice versa.Respondents indicated adjustments wererequired during the ship/shore andshore/ship transition. For example, oneweek was required to settle back intoshore/family life again, thenapproximately one week before returningto sea tension builds, arguments occur,wives and husbands become moody anddepressed and children are upset. Otherrespondents were concerned with:

(i) The strain placed on wife/partnerfor bringing up children alone;

(ii) The contribution of sea going life todivorce rate in the industry;

(iii) Uncertainty of leave and return towork disrupts family plans; and

(iv) Difficulties in planning forsignificant family events; birthdays,anniversaries.

Respondents indicated some companieshave recently addressed the issues ofsupport for wives and families. Forexample, a wives support group has been

established - newsletters enablingcommunication to occur between thoseashore. A further step by somecompanies has been to permit families totake a short trip on the ship betweenports in Tasmania. The trip has beenmost helpful in helping familiesunderstand work at sea and greatlyappreciated by those involved.

SUGGESTIONS

Work/Home InterfaceSuggestions on this topic related to theneed for the family to visit the shipsometimes, and the production of a videoabout work and life at sea to help familyunderstand the environment at sea.

Other suggestions indicated wheneverpossible advanced notification should begiven of courses to be attended duringthe year so that these can be pre-plannedfor leave periods rather than hurriedlyarranged.

On board ManagementSuggestions on this topic related to theneed for on board management to becreative to keep people motivated “pat-on-back occasionally”

Other SuggestionsSome respondents indicated seafarerswould benefit from the educationalbenefits of computer courses held at sea.A number of respondents offeredsuggestions regarding several limitationsof the present study:

(i) The need for further surveys forwives/partners and families ofseafarers;

(ii) The need for additional surveys ofspecific industry areas such as Tug-boat industry Offshore Oil and Gas;

151

PositiveThe 51 positive comments about issues atsea related to health, recreation/relaxationand communication with family.

SuggestionsThere were 18 suggestions relating toissues associated with stress at sea.Suggestions regarding work schedules/hours and fatigue related to theimplementation of a half or full day’s restduring a working week. Suggestionsindicated that compulsory work andsleep hours as per the InternationalConvention on Standards for Trainingand Certification of Watchkeepers mustbe adhered to across the industry.

Suggestions regarding health at searelated to the use of ‘quit’ programswhile at sea in relation to smoking, drugand alcohol abuse. Suggestions weremade in relation to decreasing stresslevels on board by increasing harmonybetween officers and crew. It was pointedout that a more relaxed attitude on boardwas more conducive to productivity.

Cooking of Food

A considerable number of respondentsexpressed concerns regarding theexcessive frying of food, with nutritiousfood being ruined by too much frying.Some respondents indicated cooksshould be properly trained in thepreparation of low fat foods. Otherrespondents indicated more low-fatproducts should be available at sea.

On some ships, there was little frying offood; cooks were very health andnutrition conscious and offered plenty ofnon-fried food choices.

(iii) The length of the present survey andthe confidentiality of information;and

(iv) The research team should visit shipsto measure noise, heat andhumidity.

AT SEA

NegativeThere were 1744 negative and 51 positivemiscellaneous comments relating tosources of stress at sea. At sea, the largestpercentage of negative comments relatedto quality of sleep (15.6%), workschedules/hours (13.7%) and fatigue(12.9%). Not quite so important butnevertheless still important were frying offood (8.2%), job commitment and attitudesof some employees (7.4%) and on boardprofessional relationships (6.7%).

Pilots

The very few negative comments frompilots related to health and recreationand relaxation.

Masters/Mates

The 535 negative comments from mastersand mates related to the quality of sleep(19.6%), work schedules/hours (15.5%)and fatigue (14.4%).

Engineers

The 600 negative comments from engi-neers related to fatigue (15.0%), quality ofsleep (11.6%) and job commitment andattitude of some employees (13.0%).

Crew

The 599 negative comments from crewmembers related to quality of sleep(16.2%), work schedules/hours (14.5%)and frying of food (11.5%).

152

Quality of Sleep

A very large number of respondentsindicated poor quality sleep was relatedto two main issues:

(i) The location of the sleepingaccommodation in relation to noisesources on the ship; and

(ii) The poor soundproofing of sleepingaccommodation. For example, inships working in the Offshore Oiland Gas sector sleepingaccommodation is located forward(role and pitch noticed more), andnoise comes from the bow thrusterand/or anchor winch. Moreover,when engine room funnels areattached to the accommodationarea, noise and vibration are loudand constant. Other respondentsreported poor quality sleep becauseof noise associated with air-conditioning systems, highelectrical fields (generators), publicaddress announcements and trafficon walkways and noise from barand recreation areas.

Further comments regarding sleeprelated to:

(i) Poor quality short duration sleepcontributed to ongoing fatigue;

(ii) Extremely loud alarms directly oversleeping bunks - alarms far too loud;

(iii) Sleep deprivation affected thegeneral mood of the ship and wasexacerbated when the ship visited 3-5 ports per week for an 8 week workperiod; and

(iv) Safety procedures such as fire drills,boat drills, safety rounds (conductedduring daylight hours) disturb thesleep of night shift personnelsleeping during the day.

Work Schedule/Hours

A very large number of respondentsraised concern about the very long dailyworking hours experienced by thoseworking in some sea areas and in somedepartments. Some issues associatedwith long hours were:

(i) Daily work hours between 12 and 18hours, especially since demanning;

(ii) Working 7 days per week for 7-8weeks;

(iii) Junior mates spending 6 hours onand 6 hours off for up to 36 hours;

(iv) Deck officers working 6 hours onand 6 hours off for 28 days; and

(v) The 24 hours per day on call systemfor 28 days was also exhausting.

Some respondents from specific sectorssuch as the Offshore Oil and Gas area feltfatigue from work practices of 6 hrs on 6off with a total of 36 hours duty on 3.5hours sleep daily. Frequent calls off-watchdemonstrate the need for a second matewhere continuous watchkeeping andimplementation of internationalconventions re watchkeeping hours isrequired. Respondents reported beingfatigued towards the end of a swing andexperiencing a diminished, decisionmaking process. This fatigued situationworsened when handling andmanoeuvring vessels a number of times aday in close proximity to other ships andfixed structures in Offshore Oil and Gas.Respondents indicated safety wascompromised when working during badweather following long hours of duty.

Respondents from some departmentsreported suffering fatigue from being on24 hour gear turns every 3 days (UMS),completing a full day’s work after and

153

Job Commitment and AttitudesSome respondents were concerned thelevel of job commitment and attitude ofsome employees and the added stressthis placed on others working at sea.

SUGGESTIONS

Work Schedules and Hours andFatigueMany respondents suggested having aday or half day off to help recover fromfatigue and relax. Other respondentsreported all on board should strictlyadhere to work and sleep hours underthe Maritime Act.

HealthSome respondents suggested theimplementation of:

(i) Quit smoking programs on boardship; and

(ii) The facility should exist to take leavefrom sea for alcohol and or drugrehabilitation.

A few respondents reported higherphysical stress (elevated heart rate)during pitching and rolling of the ship inbad weather and suggested furtherinvestigation of this issue.

Recreation and RelaxationSome respondents indicated computerson board should be focused towardseducation not only games. Otherssuggested the industry should closelymonitor progress by the UK maritimeindustry into Internet access; pay TV maybe an option in some work areas.

OtherSome respondents suggested health covershould be extended to cover leave periods.

working much of the night. Respondentsindicated some departments werestruggling with the long hours and theeffects of demanning. For example, in thelast 15 years the engineering departmentworkforce decreased by 62% and time inport decreased by 80%. Enormous workschedules were required to maintainequipment to minimum standards.

FatigueA very large number of respondentsreported experiencing acute and chronicfatigue associated with the long workinghours, short duration and poor qualitysleep. Fatigue was worsened by:

(i) A 7 day working week and no restday; and

(ii) Quick turnaround times in ports(particularly when a large number ofports were visited) each week.

Professional and Personal RelationshipsMany respondents reported increasedstress due to the politics of shipping suchas union power and interdepartmentalsquabbles dominating workplace relation-ships. The disparity between groups in thelevel of responsibility, unequal workloadsand very different work attitudes wors-ened the situation. A few respondentsindicated in some cases officers treatedcrew poorly and insisted on maintaining aprofessional hierarchy off duty.

Communication with FamilySome respondents reported the high costof phone calls to the family and uncertainmail caused further stress at sea. Otherrespondents indicated mobile phoneswere helpful in keeping in touch withfamily and reduced stress associated withbeing away from home for long periods.

154

ASHORE

NegativeAshore, there were 227 negative commentsand 229 positive comments regardingadditional sources of stress. The highestpercentage of negative comments ashorerelated to uncertainty (26.4%),relationships with wife/husband/partner(15.4%) and quality of sleep (11.9%).

PilotsNo comments regarding life ashore wererecorded for this group.

Masters/MatesThe 65 negative comments from masters/mates related to uncertainty (18.5%),friends (15.4%) and demands from work(12.3%).

EngineersThe 95 negative comments fromengineers related to uncertainty (33.6%),relationships with wife/partner (16.3%)and relationships with children/otherfamily (13.2%).

CrewThe 64 negative comments ashore relatedto uncertainty (23.4%), relationships withwife/partner (18.7%), and quality ofsleep (14.1%).

PositiveThe highest percentage of positivecomments related to recreation/relaxation(33.6%), relationships with children/otherfamily (25.3%) and quality of sleep (10.5%).

Masters/MatesThe 80 positive comments from mastersand mates related to recreation/relaxation (33.7%) , relationships withwife/husband/partner (27.5%), andrelationships with children/other family(20.0%).

EngineersThe 58 positive comments from engineersrelated to relationships with wife/partner (32.7%), recreation/relaxation(24.1%), and relationships with children/other family (22.4%).

CrewThe 91 positive comments from crewrelated to recreation/relaxation (39.6%),relationships wife/partner (34.1%), andrelationships with children/other family(31.8%).

The following section shows some of theunderlying issues relating tomiscellaneous comments.

Quality of SleepSome respondents reported poor sleepwas experienced because of very young/sick children and worries over delinquentchildren. A large number of respondentsreported excellent sleep ashore.

UncertaintyA number of respondents were worriedabout uncertainty related to the future ofindustry and the affects on the family.Other respondents experienced difficultywith planning ashore because of theuncertainty of recall to work.

Relationships: Wife, Husband and/orPartnerSome respondents reported concerns andguilt over releasing bottled up stress atsea on wife. A number of respondentswere concerned over upsetting routinesof family, feel like a stranger whenreturning and working at fitting into thefamily again.

A large number of respondents stressedthe importance of a stable family life towork at sea and the importance of work-ing hard to ensure successful marriages/relationships. Some respondents indi-

155

cated some wives enjoy the challenge ofcoping with the children alone.

Relationships: Children and Wider

Family

A number of respondents were worriedover missing significant events in thechildren’s lives such as birthdays, schooland sporting success

Recreation & Relaxation

Many respondents reported missingparticipation in team sport because ofwork at sea. However, respondents alsoreported plenty of activity and exercisewas organised with the family while onleave.

Demands from Work

A number of respondents reported stressassociated with work demands such as:

(i) Time ashore interrupted by havingto contact company;

(ii) Calls from company regarding trivialmatters and sudden calls fromcompany to attend unplanned shortcourses and conferences. Otherrespondents indicated there waspressure while ashore to attend unionrallies and meetings.

Friends

Some respondents reported difficulty inmaintaining friendships outside of family;friends were mostly maritime friends.

Other

Other sources of stress reported byrespondents related to:

(i) Pressure from spouse for shore-based work;

(ii) Difficulty relaxing while ashore; and

(iii) Missing mates on the ship whileashore.

Relationships with Wife/Partner

Some respondents suggested being ableto take partner/wife to sea sometimeswould be helpful.

Other

A number of respondents reportedmaking friends ashore could beimproved by involvement in voluntaryfire fighting helps and/or Air Sea Rescue;both organisations utilise seafarers skillsand would help make friends ashore.

Additional Comments with LowerResponse Frequency

Access to professional development

A number of respondents wereconcerned with difficulties inundertaking study courses/technicalknowledge upgrades because of the timeaway from home. Some respondentsindicated a need for more access toformal and hobby type courses throughdistance education. Other respondentspointed out the advantages experiencedby taking correspondence courses with aflexible delivery approach while at sea.

Public Image

Respondents were concerned at the poorpublic image of the maritime industryand the need for some form of publicawareness program. Generally,respondents felt the public had nounderstanding of the rigours of workingand living at sea for long periods.

Environmental Damage

Some respondents were worried overaccidents, oil spills (legal implications)and the lack of concern by some seafarersof these issues.

156

Shipowners

Some respondents were concernedshipowners focused on commercialconsiderations only, with littleunderstanding shown for the demands ofa seafaring life on family members.

Unions

Some respondents were concerned overthe level of aggressive indoctrination bysome union members of others on boardand of family at home. Others wereworried over the high cost of union fees,and in some instances the absence ofunion support for stress induced illnessor advice on injury rehabilitation.

Occupational Health and Safety

A number of respondents were worriedthat on some ships, occupational healthand safety was not taken seriously by allon board (unions, officers, crew andcompany). For example, smokingregulations ignored by all, breaches ofsafe work practices towards end of shift/swing, delay in transfer of medical casesfrom the ship, unattended injury (cut)leading to fatality. On some ships poorquality safety equipment and protectiveclothing was supplied.

However, some positive commentsindicated high standards of OccupationalHealth and Safety in some working areas(Offshore Oil and Gas); this approachwas appreciated by all on board.

Injury Rehabilitation

Some respondents had experienceddifficulties with the absence ofinformation regarding the structure ofrehabilitation/return-to-work schemesand workers compensation schemes.

Recruitment

Some respondents were concerned aboutthe appropriateness of trainee engineersand deck officers belonging to the crew’sunion during their training period.

Sexual Harassment

Harassment from one or two male crewcan make life difficult for a female crewmember.

Uncertainty

A number of respondents experiencedincreased stress levels when leave andreturn-to-work dates were not known orfrequently changed.

Drugs & Alcohol

A number of respondents indicated thealcohol policy was not enforced acrossthe industry. Respondents reportedexamples of problems of alcohol and ordrugs during watchkeeping; and copingwith employees who abuse alcohol anddrugs before coming on duty. Somerespondents indicated recent homeproblems caused a reliance on alcohol tocope; while others reported smokingdrugs to cope with joint pain.

Some respondents indicated dry shipsare happy ships and ships should be dry.

Recreation/Relaxation

Some respondents indicated priority wasgiven to videos for relaxation and notenough emphasis was placed on exercise.Other respondents indicated on someships the gym equipment wasinappropriate; whereas on others it wasexcellent. In general, poor relaxationfacilities at sea can seriously affect moraleat sea.

157

Job Skill/Training

Respondents concerns about trainingrelated to:

(i) Whether Maritime College trainingwas sufficient given the smaller crewsizes; and

(ii) The lack of time to give more on-the-job training.

Other respondents indicated need formore performance reviews at sea for skilland training.

Family Health

A number of respondents worried overfamily health while at sea. This causedextra stress especially whencommunication with home was difficult.

Bad Weather

A number of respondents indicated badweather resulted in:

(i) Exhaustion - physically andmentally;

(ii) Sleep was worse; and

(iii) Joint soreness was experienced dueto the constant pitching and rollingof the ship.

Social Support

Some respondents reported experiencingfurther stress because there was no socialsupport on board in whom to confide.

Officers Attitudes

A number of respondents indicated someofficers had a very poor attitude to crew;whereas others engendered a spirit ofteamwork.

Other

Some respondents reported increasedstress associated with:

(i) Berthing at night;

(ii) Extreme cold;

(iii) Fire

Leave Length

A large number of respondents reportedleave ashore is very much looked forwardto, and leave time with family is precious.

Single Status

Some respondents reported difficulty ofbuilding friendships and the need forstaggered leave ratios.

SUMMARYMost of the concerns regardingadditional sources of stress related toindustry wide issues and when at sea. Incontrast, time ashore had a positiveimpact on seafarers and played a key rolein coping with stress while at sea.

Industry-wide, the most frequentnegative comments on sources of stressrelated to aspects of the work and homeinterface, demanning and shoremanagement. Negative comments on thesources of stress associated with the workand home interface related to thetransition from shore to ship, beingunable to attend important family events,and the emotional strain on a seafarer’spartner caring for the family. Concernsregarding demanning related mainly tothe way in which demanning wasachieved, and the increased workloadresulting from demanning on a number

158

of the departments on board. The socialaspect of life at sea has also suffered sincedemanning; fewer to socialise withleading to boredom and loneliness.Negative comments regarding shoremanagement focused on poorcommunication, consultation, planningand little or no understanding by shorepersonnel of the hardships associatedwith working and living at sea.

Job satisfaction scored the highestnumber of positive comments frommasters/mates, engineers and crew.Suggestions on sources of stressindustry-wide related to the work andhome interface and the chance forfamilies to visit ships or take anoccasional trip. Other comments relatedto target groups of further surveys(families, Tugboats and Offshore Oil andGas).

At sea, the most frequent negativecomments could be divided into twocategories. The first related to sleep andwork including the quality of sleep, workschedules/hours and fatigue. The secondincluded issues such as excess frying offood, job commitment and attitudes ofsome seafarers and interdepartmentalrelations.

Negative comments relating to thequality of sleep mainly concerned thelocation of sleeping accommodation closeto high noise areas on board and the poorsoundproofing of accommodation.Negative comments relating to workschedules/hours mainly concerned thelong hours worked daily by someseafarers, the absence of a rest day andthe extra office/paper work to be

completed at the end of a shift.

Positive comments at sea related tohealth, recreation/relaxation andcommunication with family. Suggestionsat sea related to strategies to improvework schedules/hours/fatigue andhealth.

Ashore the most frequent positivecomments related to recreation/relaxation, relationships with wife/husband/partner and relationships withchildren and other family. Respondentsclearly indicated the importance offamily relationships and recreation andrelaxation while ashore. Uncertainty andstressful relationships with wife/husband/partner scored highest onnegative comments ashore.

Seafarers reported a degree of positivejob satisfaction. Some hardshipsassociated with the unique workingenvironment at sea are accepted as part-of-the-job. However, the combination ofpoor sleep quality, long working hoursand resulting fatigue contribute toadditional sources of stress whileworking at sea. The work and homeinterface is an important aspect of life asa seafarer. Positive personal and familyrelationships ashore do much to reducethe stress associated with the home-and-away basis of working at sea.

185

FASTOH RESEARCH TEAMSCHOOL OF HUMAN MOVEMENT STUDIESQUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGYLOCKED BAG No 2RED HILL Q 4059

new a survey of the health, stress and fatigue of australian seafarers · 2019. 3. 7. ·...

Documents