Promotion of school community staff’s occupational well-being – general results of the action research project in Finland and Estonia, 2009-2013

Motivational seminar 14.11.2012, Tallinn

•University Lecturer, Terhi Saaranen, docent, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Science, Finland,•Head of Health Promotion Department, Tiia Pertel, MD, Health Promotion Department, The National Institute for Health Development, Estonia,•Chief specialist, Triinu Kalle, MA, Health Promotion Department, The National Institute for Health Development, Estonia,•Chief specialist, Siivi Hansen, MD, Health Promotion Department, The National Institute for Health Development, Estonia,•Chief specialist, Liana Varava, MD, Health Promotion Department, The National Institute for Health Development, Estonia,•Chairman of the Board, Kädi Lepp, MA , Tallinn University Haapsalu Collage / Foundation for School Health Care in Tallinn Development, Estonia,•Professor, Hannele Turunen ,PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Science, Finland,•Professor, Kerttu Tossavainen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Science, Finland,

Contact information: Terhi Saaranen, email: terhi.saaranen@uef.fi

University of Eastern Finland

•3 campuses (Joensuu, Kuopio, Savonlinna)

• Approximately 15,000 degree students

• Four faculties:

Philosophical Faculty

Faculty of Science and Forestry,

Faculty of Health Sciences, and

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business

Studies

16.11.2012 2

The Department of Nursing Science

16.11.2012 3

• The Department of Nursing Science at the University of Eastern Finland on the Kuopio Campus is part of the multidisciplinary researchand educational environment of the Faculty of Health Sciences.

• The faculty educates and trains experts and professionals in a numberof key health and health care fields.

16.11.2012 4

Content

*Implementation

*Purpose

*Study questions

*Methods

*Findings

*Conclusions

Promotion of school community staff’s occupational well-being – general results of the action research project in Finland and Estonia, 2009-2013

16.11.2012 5

Baseline survey was undertaken between autumn 2009 and winter 2010

Beginning of the interventions (2010-2011)

Process evaluation (autumn 2011 to winter 2012)

Final survey (autumn 2012)

-school's health promotion group has

written a mid-term evaluation of the

school research project in autumn

2011 (Finland n=16, Estonia n=38),

- continuation of interventions

and reassessment of the action

process

- support activities that

enhance the well-being in

each school

- school’s health promotion

groups established

- school’s health promotion groups planned their own

school project, in collaboration

with the entire staff

- action plans of school staff’s occupational well-being written

(Finland n=17, Estonia n=33), the

development targets and activities

will take place between 2010 and

2012

- data were collected using

the quantitative web-based

Well-being at your work index

questionnaire

- information about the school

staff in Finland (n=486)

- information about the school

staff in Estonia (n=1330)

- quantitative web-based Well-being at your work index questionnaire

- the same respondents as in the baseline survey

IMPLEMENTATION

Purpose

•The results of the occupational well-being of school staff related to the aspects of ”working community”, ”worker and work”, ” working conditions” and ”professional competence” and outline development requirements of school communities across Finland and Estonia.

•Using participatory action research, the projects run from 2009 until 2013 within the SHE (Schools for Health in Europe) network in Finland and Estonia

16.11.2012 6

Study questions The specific questions were

1) What was the state of school community staffs’ occupational well-being in Finland and Estonia at the baseline of the project?

2) What were the most problematic factors of the aspects of the working community, worker and work, working conditions and professional competence in Finland and Estonia at the baseline of the project?

3) What were the needs for development related to the working community, worker and work, working conditions and professional competence in Finland and Estonia at the baseline of the project?

4) How have the aims of the action plans been achieved in Estonia and Finland? (interim evaluation)

16.11.2012 7

16.11.2012 8

WORKER

AND WORK

WORK

COMMUNITY

PROFESSIONAL

COMPETENCE

WORKING

CONDITIONS

OCCUPATIONAL WELL-BEING

OF STAFF IN A SCHOOL COMMUNITY

Improvement of

the functionality

of the working

community and

organisation

Promotion of

individual

health and

resources

Development

of work and

the working

environment

Development of

professional

competence

Methods

16.11.2012 9

Questionnaire and Data

•the Well-being at your work index questionnaire

•background information•the total evaluation of occupational well-being and

satisfaction in terms of actions that to maintainthe ability to work

•the opinions and development needs of thedifferent aspects of occupational well-being (working conditions, working community,worker and work, professional competence)

Methods

16.11.2012 10

Data analysis•Background information using descriptive statistics•The aspects of ”working community”, “worker and work”,”working conditions” and ”professional competence”sum variables were formulated, differences between thecountries were studied by using the Mann-Whitney U test

Methods

16.11.2012 11

Three sum variables of the aspect ”working community”:• working atmosphere and appreciation of others’ work • co-operation and information • work management and time use

Four sum variables of the aspect ”worker and work”:• workload • activities supporting personal resources at work, • the functioning of occupational health care • urgency and pace of work

Methods

16.11.2012 12

Four sum variables of the aspect ”working conditions”:• working space, postures and equipment• physical factors• no chemical and biological factors and permanent working site

Three sum variables of the aspect ”professional competence”:• substantive competence and interaction• adequacy of education • satisfaction with IT skills

Table I. School community staffs’ evaluation of occupational well-being and actions employed to maintain the ability to work in Finland (n = 486) and Estonia (n = 1330).

16.11.2012 13

Variables Finland Estonia

Mean SD Mean SD p-value (Mann-

Whitney Test)

Subjective occupational well-

being at this workplace

compared with the best level

3.81 0.77 3.71 0.71 0.002

General well-being of the staff

in my working community

3.42 0.77 3.61 0.64 0.000

Satisfaction with the

occupational well-being

actions available to me

2.93 0.98 3.62 0.77 0.000

Satisfaction with the

occupational well-being

actions available in my

working community

3.08 0.98 3.65 0.75 0.000

RESULTS

14

Results: Working community

Finland (n=486)

mean

Estonia (n=

1330)

mean

Working atmosphere and appreciation of others’ work

Opinion: 3.76

Need for

development: 3.45

Opinion: 3.97***

Need for development:

3.66***

Co-operation and information

Opinion: 3.55

Need for

development: 3.40

Opinion: 3.85***

Need for development:

3.63***

Work management and time use

Opinion: 3.29

Need for

development: 3.30

Opinion: 3.93***

Need for development:

3.68***

1=totally disagree, 2=quite disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4 =quite agree, 5=totally agree*** p = 0.000 (Mann-Whitney U test)

15Results: Worker and work

Finland (n=486) Estonia (n=1330)

Workload Opinion: 3.30

Need for

development: 3.42

Opinion: 3.75***

Need for

development: 3.67***

Activities supporting personalresources at work (for example, control over stress, tickets to gym/swimming pool and eitherpersonal or group mentoring)

Opinion: 2.73

Need for

development: 2.98

Opinion: 3.16***

Need for

development: 3.23***

Functioning of occupational healthcare

Opinion: 2.89

Need for

development: 3.15

Opinion: 3.07***

Need for

development: 3.19

Urgency and pace of work Opinion: 2.62

Need for

development: 3.11

Opinion: 3.16***

Need for

development: 3.47

1=totally disagree, 2=quite disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=quite agree, 5=totally agree*** p = 0.000 (Mann-Whitney U test)

16Results: Working conditions

1=totally disagree, 2=quite disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=quite agree, 5=totally agree*** p = 0.000 (Mann-Whitney U test)

Finland (n=486) Estonia (n=1330)

Working space, postures and equipment

Opinion: 2.91

Need for

development: 2.97

Opinion: 3.62***

Need for

development:

3.56***

Physical factors (e.g. noise leveltemperature, lighting)

Opinion: 2.88

Need for

development: 3.02

Opinion: 3.71***

Need for

development:

3.79***

No chemical and biological factors Opinion: 3.62

Need for

development: 4.17

Opinion: 4.18***

Need for

development:

4.55***

Permanent working site (for example a teacher or a cleanerdon’t need to move to anotherschool during the workday)

Opinion: 3.79

Need for

development: 3.93

Opinion: 4.24***

Need for

development:

4.46***

17

Results: Professional competence

Finland (n=486)

mean

Estonia (n=

1330)

mean

Substantive competence and interaction

Opinion: 3.76

Need for

Development: 3.32

Opinion: 3.90***

Need for development:

3.39***

Adequacy of education Opinion: 2.86

Need for

Development: 3.09

Opinion: 3.54***

Need for development:

3.32***

Satisfaction with IT skills Opinion:3.26

Need for

Development:3.16

Opinion: 3.05

Need for development: 2.98

1=totally disagree, 2=quite disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4 =quite agree, 5=totally agree*** p = 0.000 (Mann-Whitney U test)

Interim evaluation

16.11.2012 18

•school's health promotion group has writtena mid-term evaluation of the school research projectin autumn 2011 (Finland n=16, Estonia n=38)

• a mid-term evaluation has been done via a web-based questionnaire

continuation of interventions and reassessment of the action process

support activities that enhance the well-being in each school

16.11.2012 19

See the Word document “A figure summarizing the goals of the action plan and how these were realized in Estonian school communities (n=38)”

Results of the mid-term evaluation in Estonia

16.11.2012 20

• Based on the results of the mid-term evaluation, formulating an occupational health plan for school staff was considered to increase the commitment to occupational well-being and made operations more systematic.

Comments from the schools:

”Forces you to keep occupational well-being in mind”” Gives structure to actions””Acknowledging promlem areas and working on them is target-oriented””It make things clearer when issues have been collected and written down””Has made the work community more active””Has improved knowing your workmates”” The plan has used staff as a starting point”

• Some schools had problems in getting other staff members to invest themselves in development actions

Experiences of the action plan in Finland

Conclusion

Working community•there is a need for development measures that increase schools’ communality (e.g. social support and co-operation); specific interventions will be developed on the basis of the results obtained from the project schools.

Conclusion

Worker and work, Working conditions• Differences between the two countries (more positive results from Estonia)

Why?•The problems of indoor air quality andcontamination by mould in several Finnish schools(unawareness of such problems in Estonian Schools?)•Alternatively, Estonia is still quite a new state andthe development of schools is still on-goingfor instance , there has been development work to improve physical working conditions, which staff have been satisfiedwith.

Conclusion

Professional competence

•The Estonian participants felt a need for development especially in IT skills •The Finnish participants’ results indicate there is alsoa definite need for improvement in the adequacy of staff education

Conclusion

• The study does not clearly explain the differences between the results from Finland and Estonia, and further research is needed in this area

• There is a need for development in school staffs’ occupational well-being and maintenance of their ability to work at the individual and community levels in both countries

Conclusion

Healthy staff members have more energy to handle their work and this has an effect on the well-being and learning of children and adolescents.

Therefore, it is important to create research-based intervention projects to promote the occupational well-being and professional competence of school staff

Thank you for participating.

References:Saaranen T, Sormunen M, Streimann K, Pertel T, Hansen S, Varava L, Lepp K, Turunen H. & Tossavainen K. 2012. The occupational well-being of school staff and maintenance of their abilityto work in Finland and Estonia - focus on the school community and professional competence. Health Education 112(3), 236-255.

Saaranen T, Pertel T, Kalle T, Hansen S, Varava L, Lepp K, Turunen H. & Tossavainen K. 2012. School staffs’ experiences of work and working conditions in Finnish and Estonian schools. The Open Public Health Journal, 5, 40-51.

Some pictures from Tallinn in December 2009

16.11.2012 27

Some pictures from Rakvere in June 2010

16.11.2012 28

16.11.2012 29

The picture from Geneve in July 2010

16.11.2012 30

The picture from Kuopio in May 2011