research report 376this project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
HSE Health & Safety
Executive
Health and well-being in the offshore environment
The role of the organisational support
Prepared by the University of Aberdeen for the Health and Safety Executive 2006
RESEARCH REPORT 376
![Page 2: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
HSE Health & Safety
Executive
Health and well-being in the offshore environment
The role of the organisational support
Kathryn Mearns, Lorraine Hope & Tom Reader Industrial Psychology Research Centre
University of Aberdeen Kings College
Aberdeen AB24 2UB
This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health behaviour, organizational citizenship behaviours, safety behaviour, organizational commitment and accident involvement of offshore workers on the UKCS. The Offshore Safety Division of the UK Health and Safety Executive’s Hazardous Installations Directorate sponsored the study.
Phase 1 was a survey of approximately 2000 offshore employees on 31 installations in the UK sector undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating measures of health and safety climate, employers’ commitment to health, risk-taking behaviour and employees’ commitment to the organisation. The survey found evidence to suggest that positive health management practice is associated with good risk investment.
Phase 2 investigated the hypothesis that the support provided by the operator, supervisor and workmates both in general and regarding the health of employees helps to build a positive perception of health climate. This in turn, impacts upon organisational citizenship behaviours, health behaviours and organisational commitment. These positive organisational activities may also have an impact on accident involvement.
A sample of 703 offshore workers on 18 installations on the UKCS responded. The data indicated that investment in employee health may help build perceptions of organisational support, which have strong relationships with organisational commitment, and also safety behaviours and organisational citizenship behaviours. The role of supervisors in supporting employee health is also highlighted.
Offshore medics completed a separate questionnaire, which indicated that many were actively involved in health surveillance, education and promotion, despite the demands on their time from unrelated activities.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE BOOKS
![Page 3: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
© Crown copyright 2006
First published 2006
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted inany form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to [email protected]
ii
![Page 4: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 11.1 Background and Objectives 11.2 Health and Safety and Organizational Climate 11.3 Health Promotion and Surveillance in the Workplace 21.4 Organizational Health Climate 31.5 Health in the Offshore Environment 31.6 Phase 1 – Health and Well-being in the Offshore Environment 41.7 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours 51.8 The Benefits of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours 61.9 Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours 71.10 Other factors affecting Organizational Citizenship Behaviours 81.11 Perceived Organizational Support 91.12 The Psychological Contract 101.13 The Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours 111.14 Investment in Employee Health 11
2 Research Method 132.1 Description of the Health at Work Questionnaire 142.2 Description of the Medics Health at Work Questionnaire 17
3 Results I: Descriptive Analysis of Health at Work Questionnaire 193.1 Installation types, sample size and response rates 193.2 Demographic information 203.3 Accident Rates 233.4 Personal Health 243.5 Consultations with the medic 263.6 Smoking habits 273.7 Healthy behaviours on installations 283.8 Health Promotion 303.9 Satisfaction with occupational health management 313.10 Respondents’ hearing 32
4 Results II: descriptive analysis of medics Questionnaire 344.1 Sample size, response rates and demographics 344.2 Health screening and surveillance 344.3 Exercise and fitness 354.4 Smoking 374.5 Stress 394.6 Diet and healthy eating 394.7 Organizational support 404.8 Accidents, incidents and the role of the medic 414.9 The Medics Index 44
iii
![Page 5: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5 Results III: Addressing the research questions 455.1 Introduction 455.2 Data Coding and Analysis 455.3 Factor Analysis and Scale Indices 475.4 Analysis of Group Differences 625.5 Correlational Analysis 655.6 Predicting offshore workers’ organisational commitment, citizenship behaviour,
safety behaviour and personal health behaviour 685.7 Predicting self-reported accident involvement 70
6 Overall Summary and General Discussion 726.1 Health at Work, Organizational Commitment and Behaviours in the Workplace 726.2 Health at Work Dimensions 766.3 Between Group Differences 766.4 Issues 776.5 Conclusions 77
7 References 80
8 Appendices 85
iv
![Page 6: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the
health behaviour, organizational citizenship behaviours, safety behaviour, organizational
commitment and accident involvement of offshore workers on the UKCS. The Offshore Safety
Division of the UK Health and Safety Executive’s Hazardous Installations Directorate sponsored
the study. We wish to acknowledge the participation of the following 6 organizations in the
current research: Amerada Hess Limited, BP plc, Chevron Texaco (UK), Lundin Petroleum,
Marathon Oil UK Limited and Transocean SedcoForex.
The current study represents the second phase of an ongoing research project examining the
management of health offshore and its associated benefits for the safety and well-being of
offshore workers. The findings from phase 1 of the project (Research Report 305, 2005)
suggested that installations which benefited from organizational investment in occupational
health performed significantly better on measures of safety climate, health climate, perceptions of
employer health orientation and organizational commitment. Employees on these installations
were also more satisfied with risk assessments and were more satisfied that management was
concerned about their exposure to work hazards.
The second phase of this project builds upon the findings of phase 1 and investigates the
hypothesis that the support provided by the operator, supervisor and workmates both in general
and regarding the health of employees helps to build a positive perception of health climate. This,
in turn, impacts upon organizational citizenship behaviours, safety behaviours, health behaviours
and organizational commitment. Ultimately, these positive organizational activities may also have
an impact on accident involvement.
The ‘Health at Work 2004’ questionnaire was developed to measure the provision of occupational
health, health education and health promotion as perceived by the workforce, in addition to
monitoring perceptions of organizational commitment, support from the organization, supervisor
and workmates, safety behaviour, personal health behaviour and organizational citizenship
behaviour. The questionnaire scales were found to have good psychometric properties and could
be used as the basis for ‘Health at Work’ questionnaires for other industries. In addition, medics
from the installations involved in the survey completed their own questionnaire, which requested
information about health activities.
A representative sample of 703 offshore workers on 18 installations on the UKCS responded to
the ‘Health at Work 2004’ questionnaire (representing a 35% response rate overall). Significant
correlations were found between organizational support and supervisor support and
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviours and safety behaviours.
Significant correlations between support, health activities and occupational health management
were also found. The data indicate that investment in employee health may help to build
perceptions of organisational support, which have strong relationships with organizational
commitment, and also safety behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours. The role of
supervisors in supporting employee health is also highlighted through its consistent relationship
with organizational commitment, safety behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours.
v
![Page 7: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Stepwise linear regression analysis was used to test for relationships between general and health
related support provided by the organization, by supervisors and by workmates and outcomes
such as ‘organizational commitment’, ‘citizenship behaviours’, ‘safety behaviours’ and ‘personal
health behaviour’. Three variables predicted organizational commitment. Operator support
contributed most to the model with high operator support leading to greater levels of
commitment. Health support from the supervisor appeared to be as important as health support
from workmates in contributing to the model, with high levels of support from both leading to
higher levels of commitment. With regard to citizenship behaviours, high levels of health support
from the supervisor contributed most to the model followed by operator support. Three variables
predicted safety behaviour. Health support from the supervisor again appears to contribute most
to the model followed by operator support. Health support from workmates also makes a small
but significant contribution. In all cases high levels of support appear to predict improved safety
behaviour, however, the contribution of supervisor support in a general sense seem to makes a
negative contribution with more support from the supervisor leading to less safety behaviour.
This may be a spurious result or it may be related to the fact that general support is perceived as
focusing on production issues rather than safety issues. Care should therefore be exercised in the
interpretation of this result. In the final regression equation, only one predictor variable
‘Workmate support for health’ made any contribution to personal health behaviour, however, that
contribution was small and barely significant.
Discriminant function analysis was used to predict self-reported accident involvement. Only one
scale showed a significant effect in the analysis, namely Health Activities. The function reached
significance, accounting for 59% correct classifications. The analysis further indicated that 52%
of those who had an accident in the 12 months prior to the survey were correctly classified
compared to 48% of those who had not had an accident. Since the Health Activities scale was the
only one to show a significant effect, a further DFA was conducted to determine which of the
health climate subscales could be contributing to the effect. The subscales include ‘Health
advice’, ‘Rest & relaxation’, ‘Aerobic exercise’ and ‘Eating habits’. The subsequent DFA with
these subscales entered stepwise into the analysis indicated that only one subscale, ‘Aerobic
exercise’ contributed to the effect, accounting for 70% of correct classifications. On this occasion,
44% of those who had experienced an accident were correctly classified compared to 56% of
those who had not had an accident. Again, this is little better than chance and therefore there is
limited evidence to suggest that the health activities scales contribute to the effect, however, it
may be interesting to pursue this relationship in future research.
Responses to the medics questionnaire revealed some positive results as to how health was being
managed offshore, however, discrepancies between the information reported by medics from the
same installation undermined the reliability and validity of these data. This shortcoming aside, it
was found that many of the medics were actively involved in health surveillance, education and
promotion, despite the demands on their time due to unrelated activities, e.g. administrative and
support roles. For example, all 24 medics who returned questionnaires (representing 15
installations) report that they provide health screening and health risk assessments and they all
provided information to the workforce about the dangers of smoking and the importance of
exercise. Stop smoking campaigns had been run by 95% of respondents and 70% reported that
their installation has had an on-site exercise programme running for the past 12 months. Healthy
eating campaigns were also high on the agenda, however, only 50% of medics reported that their
installation had run stress management training in the past 12 months. Interestingly, although
medics reported being often involved in most areas of health promotion, only 25% had received
formal training in health promotion activities.
vi
![Page 8: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
1 Introduction
1.1 Background & Objectives
The current project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon
the health behaviour, organizational citizenship behaviours, safety behaviour and organizational
commitment of offshore workers on the UKCS. The Offshore Safety Division of the UK Health
and Safety Executive’s Hazardous Installations Directorate sponsored the study. We wish to
acknowledge the participation of the following 6 organizations in the current research: Amerada
Hess Limited, BP plc, Chevron Texaco (UK), Lundin Petroleum, Marathon Oil UK Limited and
Transocean SedcoForex.
The current study represents the second phase of an ongoing research project examining the
management of health offshore and its associated benefits for the safety and well-being of
offshore workers. The first phase of the project, completed in 2002, investigated the impact of
health promotion and health surveillance activities on the safety and well-being of the offshore
employees on the UKCS. The findings suggested that installations which benefited from
organizational investment in occupational health performed significantly better on measures of
safety climate, health climate, perceptions of employer health orientation and organizational
commitment. Employees on these installations were also more satisfied with risk assessments and
were more satisfied that management was concerned about their exposure to work hazards.
The second phase of this project builds upon the findings of phase 1 which suggested that
investment by organizations in the health of their workforce generates unanticipated benefits in
unrelated areas such as safety behaviours and worksite commitment. The current research
investigates the hypothesis that the support provided by the operator, supervisor and workmates
both in general and regarding the health of employees helps to build a positive perception of
health climate. This, in turn, impacts upon organizational citizenship behaviours, safety
behaviours, health behaviours and organizational commitment.
The first section of this report provides an overview of some of the key issues raised and
discussed in the first phase of the project, and then continues to review some of the relevant
literature regarding employee organizational citizenship behaviours, organizational commitment
and organizational support.
1.2 Health and Safety and Organizational Climate
Organizational climate regards a ‘set of internal characteristics that distinguish one organization
from another, is experienced by members of the organization, influences their behaviour, and is
based on their collective perception of the organizational environment’ (Basen-Engquist,
Hudmon, Tripp & Chamberlain, 1998, p.112). The influence that organizational climate has in
determining how employees evaluate and respond to their work environment is well established
(James & James, 1989). Zohar’s seminal paper in 1980 identified a ‘climate for safety’, which
was theorised to reflect the importance that employers and employees place upon safe conduct in
the workplace. Research investigating safety climate has revealed recurring safety climate
dimensions that emerge as predictors of unsafe behaviours or accidents. Such dimensions include
1
![Page 9: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
management commitment to safety, supervisor competence, priority of safety over production,
and time pressure (Flin, Mearns, O’Connor & Bryden, 2000). Elements of safety climate have
emerged as predictors of accidents or unsafe behaviours in numerous structural equation models
(Cheyne, Tomas, Cox & Oliver, 1999; Neal, Griffin & Hart, 2000; Thompson, Hilton & Witt,
1998; Tomas, Melia & Oliver, 1999) with it becoming generally accepted that a favourable safety
climate is an essential component of safe operations.
Phase 1 of the current research project explored the possibility that organizational investment in
workforce health is a contributing factor in the promotion of a favourable health and safety
climate. Relatively little previous research within the area of safety culture and climate has
focussed on the issue of employee health. This is surprising, as it would seem logical for the
safety climate perceptions of employees to be affected by the importance placed on their general
health and well-being. Furthermore, consideration for the general health of employees would
appear integral to developing and promoting climates in which the quality of life and well being
of the workforce are paramount. Phase 1 of the current project examined the relationships
between the management of health and safety in the offshore environment and the attitudes and
perceptions about health and safety that may be linked to outcome measures such as accident
involvement and risk-taking behaviours.
1.3 Health Promotion and Surveillance in the Workplace.
The report for Phase 1 (Mearns & Hope, 2005) provides an in-depth assessment of the empirical
research examining the effects of health and safety management in the workplace. In summary,
the occupational health activities employed by organizations are described as falling into two
distinctive subsets, ‘health promotion’ and ‘health surveillance’ activities. Health surveillance
regards health related activities that are typically carried out in accordance with legal
requirements related to specific occupational risks and associated health conditions. Health
promotion generally refers to voluntary workplace health programmes, which are unrelated to
specific occupational activities. Health surveillance activities, due to their legal necessity, are
more likely to be monitored, evaluated and regulated than other health related workplace
activities. However, some surveillance activities may also be non-regulatory, for example an
annual medical check up, and may be seen as a form of bonus (Bell, Bishop Gann, Gilbert, Howe
et al, 1995). Health promotion activities are generally unrelated to specific occupation activities
and include activities such as healthy eating and fitness programmes. Such health promotion
programmes may be initiated by employers for a range of reasons, for example to maintain good
employee relations, for economic reasons, or to meet specific national employee health legislation
(e.g. in the US and in Scandinavian countries).
The majority of research examining the benefits of health promotion programmes, much of it
within the USA, has indicated that employee health programmes can provide substantial benefits
to employers (see Mearns & Hope, 2005, for a detailed review). These benefits can include
reduced stress levels, increased worker satisfaction, fewer health claims, less absenteeism, less
life insurance costs and a lower staff turnover (Falkenberg, 1987; Hoffman & Hobson, 1984;
Kondrasuk, 1984; Forrester, Weaver, Brown, Phillips and Hiyler, 1996; Cox, Sheperd & Corey,
1981). Research evaluating the effects of the Johnson & Johnson Live for Life (LFL) programme,
which was implemented in order to facilitate changes in the work site environment for promoting
2
![Page 10: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
health, indicates that such programmes have benefits for both the employer and the workforce.
Employers were found to benefit from reduced corporate healthcare costs and lower absenteeism
rates (Bly, Jones & Richardson, 1986; Jones, Bly & Richardson, 1990), whilst employees showed
improved fitness and physical health (Blair, Piserchia, Wilbur & Crowder, 1986). Furthermore,
employees at organizations participating in the full LFL programme were found to demonstrate
significant positive shifts on organizational attitude measures when compared to those at
designated control companies (Holzbach, Piserchia, McFadden, Hartwell, Herrmann and
Fielding, 1990).
1.4 Organizational Health Climate
Organizational climate has been found to play an important role in the effectiveness of health
promotion programmes and worker participation in such programmes (Rost, Connell,
Schechtman, Barzilai & Fisher, 1990). Certain dimensions of organizational climate, for example
perceptions of control over work, supervisor support and work time flexibility to take part in
healthy activities, have been identified as predictors of employee participation in worksite health
promotion programmes (e.g. Sloan & Gruman, 1988). Ribisl and Reischl (1993) identified ‘a
climate for health’ that is subsumed within a more general organizational climate. They found
that health climate differed significantly across worksites and that the organizational health
climate was strongly associated with exercise behaviours, smoking behaviours, nutrition, job
stress and job satisfaction. According to Pender (1989) and Stokols (1992) the health behaviours
of an organization will be influenced by its social structure. Pender (1989) suggests developing a
‘health strengthening environment’ which directly promotes and facilitates healthy behavioural
norms.
1.5 Health in the Offshore Environment
Phase 1 examined the health promotion and surveillance activities on offshore oil and gas
installations in order to investigate the potential relationship between health management and the
overall safety and well-being of offshore workers. Offshore workers have been identified as a
population group exposed to both workplace and lifestyle hazards. Due to the remoteness and
dangerous nature of the offshore work environment it is necessary that employees are medically
fit to work offshore, can cope in emergency situations and will not suffer from health problems
due to their work tasks. It is also necessary to identify, regulate and monitor potential workplace
hazards and health risks. Offshore workers also report high levels of unhealthy lifestyle habits, for
example a lack of exercise, smoking and a poor diet, which have been identified as risk factors
for coronary heart disease and other health complications (Mearns & Fenn, 1994; Horsley &
MacKenzie, 1996; Parkes, 1998). Thus, offshore workers have been identified as a group who
could benefit from health interventions through the tackling of some of the risk factors they
appear susceptible to.
Studies examining the effects of worksite health promotion have revealed significant
improvements in the worksite health climate in response to the health interventions (Basen-
Engquist et al, 1998). A recent study by Mearns, Whitaker & Flin (2001, 2003) comparing the
health and safety performance of 13 offshore oil and gas installations revealed that installations
scoring highly on a health and safety management questionnaire had lower accident and incident
3
![Page 11: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
rates. In particular, subscales of health promotion and surveillance were significantly associated
with lower lost time injury rates. This would appear to indicate a direct relationship between
health promotion and surveillance, good management and improved safety performance.
1.6 Phase 1 – Health and Well-being in the Offshore Environment
The initial phase of the project investigated the role of positive health management as a potential
antecedent of organizational climate within the offshore environment (Mearns & Hope, 2005).
The study considered three research questions, 1) did employees who engaged in personal health
and fitness management show a perceived increase in their ability to cope both physically and
psychologically with the offshore environment? 2) were installations proficient in the
management of occupational health issues also good at accident risk assessment? 3) was
increased organizational investment in health activities perceived to be indicative of higher levels
of management commitment to the workforce, and if so, what were the effects of this additional
investment?
The study documented the perceptions of offshore employees with regard to the health and safety
climate, their personal health management and the support they receive from colleagues and the
organization. Also documented were perceptions about the management of occupational health
risks, the concern of employers regarding the management of workforce health, health promotion
activities in the workplace, personal risk-taking and worksite commitment. The role of medical
personnel in relation to health promotion and training was also assessed. A health behavioural
index (HBI) was developed in order to reflect the level of health behaviours reported by
employees, thus those respondents who had high HBI scores reported higher levels of positive
health behaviours. A health management index (HMI) was also developed in order to derive a
composite score, which reflected the health management activities on an installation. The HMI
scores were derived from information provided by the medic and were considered to be an
indicator of investment and commitment to workforce health. Thus, installations that returned a
high HMI score were found to have a high level of investment and commitment to workforce
health. The analysis of the data indicated that respondents who had high scores on the HBI
differed in several ways when compared to those respondents who reported lower HBI scores.
Furthermore, installations that reported high HMI scores were also found to differ in several ways
when compared to installations with low HMI scores.
The results of the study indicated that respondents who reported high health behaviour index
(HBI) scores rated their health more positively than those who reported low HBI scores.
Furthermore, respondents who reported a high HBI score had a more positive perception of the
installation’s health climate, reported taking fewer risks at work and also reported fewer medical
problems. Thus, the results provided some support for the hypothesis that health conscious
individuals perform better in the offshore environment than those who do not focus as strongly on
personal health behaviour. In terms of the Health Management Index (HMI) scores reported by
the different installations, evidence was found to support the notion that positive health
management practice is associated with good risk assessment. A significant association was
found between the HMI scores and individual involvement in risk assessments to do with one’s
own work domain. Support was also found for the proposition that organizational investment in
employee health helps to foster perceptions of company commitment and build worker loyalty in
4
![Page 12: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
areas such as safety. Respondents on installations that reported low HMI scores reported
significantly poorer scores on unrelated measures of climate and commitment when compared to
installations with high HMI scores. Furthermore, greater investment in health-related activities
was also found to result in fewer risk taking behaviours and greater commitment at the
installation level.
The findings of Phase 1 suggested interesting differences in the broader organizational climates
between installations, which report differential levels of organizational commitment and
emphasis upon the health of the workforce. The findings indicated that the benefits of
organizational investment in workforce health may not be limited only to health related benefits,
but may also be associated with broader organizational benefits in the form of greater workforce
commitment and improved safety behaviour. This finding will be expanded upon in the second
phase of this research project. In particular, the current study proposes to investigate the
hypothesis that the support for health and well-being by the organization and management builds
a positive perception of health climate, which in turn impacts upon personal health behaviours,
citizenship behaviours, organizational commitment and safety behaviour. The following sections
will describe these concepts in more detail and outline why they might be important factors for
positive work performance. The objective of the current study is to extend these ideas and apply
them to safety performance.
1.7 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) describes those individual behaviours in the
workplace that are not directly recognised by an organization’s formal reward system, yet serve
to promote the general well-being of the company (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983). Organizational
citizenship behaviours are not enforceable or determined by a formal employment contract and
are only undertaken at the discretion of individual employees (Organ, 1988). Due to the fact that
OCBs go beyond prescribed job requirements, are not clearly specified, and are hard to measure
formally, they are not easily enforceable by the threat of sanctions or incentive of rewards.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) review much of the literature examining
organizational citizenship behaviours and their related concepts. They argue that whilst much of
the research examining OCBs have considered the factors that determine citizenship behaviours,
relatively little effort has been spent concisely defining OCBs and their associated benefits. They
also report that although around 30 different forms of citizenship behaviour can be identified
from the OCB literature, many of the behavioural concepts overlap and can be organised into
seven distinct dimensions, which themselves can be traced back to dimensions defined by Katz
(1964).
The seven dimensions identified from the extensive research examining organizational citizenship
behaviours include: 1) Helping behaviours, involves the voluntarily helping of colleagues and
prevention of work-related problems; 2) Sportsmanship, involves keeping a positive attitude and
outlook even when things do not go an individual’s way; 3) Organizational loyalty entails the
promotion of the organization to outsiders, defending it in the face of external threats; 4)
Organizational compliance, regards adherence to an organizations rules, regulations and
procedures even when not being monitored; 5) Individual initiative, involves voluntary acts of
innovation and creativity which are intended to improve an aspect of an organization’s
5
![Page 13: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
performance; 6) Civic Virtue, regards having concern for the organization as a whole and having
a willingness to participate actively in its operation; 7) Self development, involves the voluntary
development of knowledge, skills and behaviours
It is notable that some researchers (McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991)
have made a distinction between occupational citizenship behaviours directed at individuals
(OCBIs) and those directed at organizations (OCBOs). OCBOs can be seen as being behaviour
that is mainly beneficial to an organization, whereas OCBIs would seem mainly beneficial for
employee transactions. Furthermore, citizenship behaviours such as altruism and courtesy are
viewed as mainly benefiting co-workers whereas sportsmanship, civic virtue and
conscientiousness are directed at the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). There is also
some debate as to the extent to which the different dimensions of organizational citizenship
behaviours are actually distinct from expected in-role behaviour (Morrison, 1994). There may
also be differences in the distinctions between the behaviours that managers and employees feel
are expected job behaviours or citizenship behaviours (Podasakoff et al., 2000). A later meta-
analysis of the literature examining the dimensions of OCBs by LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002)
has also indicated that there are strong relationships among the different dimensions and that the
dimensions have equivalent relationships with the predictors most often used by OCB
researchers.
1.8 The Benefits of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours.
The review by Podsakoff et al. (2000) considers some of the work that has attempted to examine
the benefits of organizational citizenship behaviours. In particular, research examining the effect
of OCBs has been focussed on two main areas, firstly the effect of employee OCBs on
evaluations by managers regarding employee performance, pay rises and promotions, and also the
effects of OCBs on organizational performance and success. Podsakoff et al. (2000) performed a
meta-analysis on the empirical evidence assessing the effect of OCBs on managerial performance
evaluations. They determined that across the range of studies OCBs are found to have a positive
influence upon managerial evaluations of performance and other related decisions. In particular it
is judged that the weight of effect that OCBs have on influencing evaluations of performance is at
least equal to the effect of objectively measured job performance.
In terms of the effect that organizational citizenship behaviours have on actual organizational
effectiveness, Podsakoff et al. (2000) discuss the different mechanisms through which an
individual employee’s OCBs are believed to affect organizational success: 1) through enhancing
the productivity of co-workers, for example by helping them learn new skills and best-practice; 2)
by enhancing the productivity of higher managerial staff, for example by providing them with
useful feedback about specific work tasks; 3) through freeing up resources that can be used for
more productive functions, for example by being conscientious and demonstrating that time-
consuming supervision is not required; 4) by reducing the need to devote resources that are scarce
for purely maintenance functions, for example group helping behaviours reduce group conflict
and mean that less effort is needed for conflict mediation; 5) through serving as an effective
means of coordinating activities between team members and across work groups, for example by
showing courtesy and keeping members of other teams ‘in the loop’; 6) by increasing group
cohesiveness and morale which in turn makes the workplace attractive and thus easier for the
6
![Page 14: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
organization to attract and retain the best people; 7) through enhancing the stability of
organizational performance, for example by group members providing extra effort when there is a
failure to maintain performance levels; 8) by enhancing an organization’s ability to adapt to
environmental changes, for example by being willing to learn new skills.
Podsakoff et al. (2000) point out that at the time of writing only 5 research papers had empirically
examined whether organizational citizenship behaviours actually do influence organizational
performance and effectiveness. One of the first studies to have examined the effect of OCBs on
organizational performance was conducted by Karambayya (1990). Her findings indicated that
those employees who worked in high performing work units actually exhibited more citizenship
behaviours than their colleagues who were working within low performing work units. However
performance in this study was judged subjectively without an objective criterion, and more recent
studies have addressed this limitation. Subsequent studies (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1995;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Ahearne, 1998) within various occupations, such as insurance agencies,
paper mills and pharmaceutical sales teams, have attempted to consider the benefits of OCBs
through using more objective units of unit performance. Podsakoff et al’s (2000) analysis of
studies examining the benefits of OCBs on work unit performance concludes that there is indeed
support for the original hypothesis made by Organ (1998) that organizational citizenship
behaviours are related to organizational effectiveness. In particular, they found that certain OCB
dimensions, such as helping behaviours, sportsmanship and civic virtue, were found to enhance
organizational performance.
1.9 Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours
Podsakoff et al. (2000) argue that empirical research into the antecedents of OCBs have focussed
on four main categories: 1) individual characteristics; 2) task characteristics; 3) organizational
characteristics; and 4) leadership behaviours. In terms of the individual characteristics that are
determinants of organizational citizenship behaviours, Organ and Ryan (1995) discuss an
affective ‘morale’ factor. This ‘morale’ factor can be viewed as the underlying employee
satisfaction, organizational commitment, perceptions of fairness and perceptions of support from
the leadership. The meta-analysis conducted by Podsakoff et al. (2000) indicates that such factors
do appear to be important determinants of citizenship behaviours, and that morale may be
comprised of other variables such as trust and satisfaction in specific areas of interest. Organ and
Ryan (1995) also suggest that personality characteristics such as agreeableness and
conscientiousness may affect an individual’s attitudes towards their job. However, the meta-
analysis by Podsakoff et al (2000) indicated that with the exception of conscientiousness,
dispositional variables were not strongly related to dimensions of OCB. The meta-analysis also
indicates that the characteristics of a task are important determinants of OCBs, for example, how
intrinsically satisfying a task is. Furthermore, Podsakoff et al. (2000) also found that leadership
behaviours have a strong role in influencing employee OCBs. In particular, supportive behaviour
and a transformational leadership style (Bass, 1985), where employees are inspired to perform
beyond their specified job roles, were strongly related to OCBs. In terms of the relationships
between the characteristics of an organization and OCBs, the meta-analysis revealed that group
cohesiveness and perceived organizational support were significantly related to altruism and
various dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviours.
7
![Page 15: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1.10 Other factors affecting Organizational Citizenship Behaviours
In a more recent study Lee and Allen (2002) consider the role of affect and cognitions as
antecedents for organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance. Lee and Allen
(2002) describe ‘cognitions’ as referring to an individual’s considered judgements and appraisals
about aspects of a work situation, and ‘affect’ as referring to an individual’s feelings in terms of
mood about their workplace. Through self-report measures of mood at work and thoughts about
the conditions at work and procedural justice of the organization, Lee and Allen (2002) examined
the relationship of affect and cognition with OCB. The findings indicated that job ‘affect’ was
associated more strongly with organizational citizenship behaviours directed at individual
colleagues rather than the organization, for example helping colleagues to learn new skills,
whereas job cognitions were found to be associated more strongly with organizational citizenship
behaviours directed at the organization, for example improving work task procedures.
Kidwell, Mossholder & Bennet (1997) performed a multilevel analysis of organizational
citizenship behaviour using individuals and work groups. The authors examined the relationship
of the group-level measure of work group cohesiveness with OCBs, and relationship of the
individual level measures of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with OCBs. An
individual’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been found to have positive
relationships with various OCB dimensions (Organ, 1990; Puffer, 1987; Smith et al., 1983).
Group cohesiveness has also been identified as an important determinant of OCBs. Kidwell et al.
(1997) propose that cohesiveness can lead to greater intra-group communication, stronger group
influence and more favourable interpersonal evaluation. Using multilevel analysis Kidwell et al.
(1997) found that the employees within more cohesive work groups showed more OCBs than
would have been predicted from job satisfaction or commitment alone, furthermore the
relationship between individuals’ job satisfaction and OCBs was stronger in cohesive groups,
which the authors argue may act as mechanism for making it easier for satisfied individuals to
demonstrate OCBs.
In another study, Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli (1997) investigated citizenship behaviours and
organizational commitment of employees who have contrasting employee-organization
relationships. Four types of employee-organizational relationships were identified, 1) the
economic exchange relationship, where the employer offers short-term, purely economic
inducements in exchange for highly specified contributions from the employee; 2) the mutual
investment relationship, where inducements from the employer go beyond short-term monetary
rewards and extend to the employees well-being in exchange for employee contributions that lie
outwith prior agreements; 3) under investment, where employees are expected to meet extensive
long-term obligations but are only provided specified monetary rewards but no long-term
investment in their career, and; 4) over investment, where employees are provided with short and
long-term rewards for a limited set of job tasks. The results indicated that employees who worked
within the mutual investment relationships performed significantly better in their work tasks,
showed more citizenship behaviours and favourable attitudes than employees working within the
other employee-organization relationships. The under investment relationship produced the
lowest results in terms of employee performance and attitudes. Tsui et al. (1997) suppose that
employees respond to this form of relationship by refraining from citizenship behaviours and
reducing their performances on core tasks.
8
![Page 16: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
1.11 Perceived Organizational Support
The construct of perceived organizational support (POS) was first developed by Eisenberger,
Huntingdon, Hutchison & Sowa (1986). POS reflects the employees’ beliefs about an
organization’s support, commitment and care towards them. Perceived organizational support has
been found to be significantly associated with employee behaviours and attitudes including trust
in the organization and organizational commitment, which refers to the identification with an
organization’s goals and being willing to expend effort for the organization (Eisenberger, Fasolo
& Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) reasons that
employees develop beliefs about the organization’s care for their well-being in order to determine
the organization’s willingness to reward increased effort and to help the individual to complete
their jobs and cope in stressful situations. Employees are theorised to personify organizations
through assigning them human-like characteristics, whereby actions by management of the
organization towards an individual is seen as an indication of the organization’s feelings towards
them (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Thus in response, employees who perceive organizational
support feel an obligation to the organization’s welfare, an identification and incorporation of
organizational membership into their social identity, and a belief that good performance is
recognised and rewarded (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore, employees must feel that
organizational support afforded to them is discretionary, necessary for aiding the organization,
and is a reward for performances.
A meta-analysis conducted by Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) aggregated findings from the mass
of literature examining the antecedents and consequences of perceived organization support.
Their findings indicated that there were three major categories of antecedents which help to
develop perceived organizational support: 1) Fairness, which regards ‘procedural justice’ and
‘interactional justice’, that is the fairness of the way resources are distributed among employees
and the quality of interpersonal treatment in resource allocation; 2) Supervisor support, which
regards the degree to which supervisors value employee contributions and care about their well-
being, and; 3) Organizational rewards and job conditions, which regards the recognition of effort
and conditions at work such as job security and training. In response to POS, employees showed
organizational commitment, less withdrawing from active participation in the organization and
increased performance of standard job activities and actions favourable to the organization that go
beyond assigned responsibility.
Whitener (2001) explored the relationships between high commitment human resource practices
and employee trust in management and organizational commitment and found that employees’
trust and commitment to the organization was stronger when they perceived the organization to
support them. The findings also indicated that the human resources practices of an organization
affect the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.
It is concluded that employees interpret human resources practices as indicative of an
organization’s commitment to them.
9
![Page 17: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
1.12 The Psychological Contract
Coyle-Shapiro (2002) uses the psychological contract framework to consider organizational
citizenship behaviours. A ‘psychological contract’ refers to an employees beliefs about the
mutual obligations that exist between the employee and the organization they are employed by
(Kickul, 2001). The belief of the employee is based upon the promises made by the employer,
such as conditions of employment and future opportunities, and an obligation to the employer is
given in exchange for those promises. The psychological contract is perceptual in nature and
therefore the interpretations of the contract will vary according to individuals and may not be
shared by the employees and employers within an organization (Kickul, 2001). The majority of
research investigating the psychological contract has focussed upon the reactions of employees to
a breaching of the contract by employers. A perceived contract breach results when there is a
sense of discrepancy between what an employee feels has been promised and what has been
fulfilled. Research indicates that psychological contract breach is likely to have a negative impact
on an employee’s work attitudes and behaviours (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Psychological contract
breach has been negatively related to job satisfaction (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), employer
trust (Robinson, 1996), self-reports of in-role and extra-role job performances (Robinson, 1996,
Robinson & Morrison, 1995), and positively related to employees’ intentions to leave their job
(Turnley & Feldman, 1999).
The strength of emotional and behavioural reactions to contract breach have been found to be
moderated depending on how an individual assesses the context surrounding a contract breach
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). For example, should an individual feel as if they have been dealt
with unfairly and unethically in terms of procedural and interactional injustice, feelings of anger
and frustration may emerge (Kickul, 2001; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Kickul (2001)
examined how, after contract breach, employees’ negative attitudes and behaviours are influenced
by procedural and interactional injustices as compared to procedures and treatment they feel are
ethical and fair. As hypothesised, Kickul (2001) found that reports of deviant work behaviours,
essentially the opposite of OCBs were higher following a contract breach when both procedural
and interactional injustice was high. This could be seen as an indication that unfair and unethical
practices can indeed have a considerable impact on employee work place beliefs and actions.
Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood and Bolino (2002) examined the similarities and differences in the
psychological contract perceptions of supervisors and subordinates. They found support for the
idea that subordinates are more likely than supervisors to perceive that the organization has not
kept the obligations that they believe were specified within the psychological contract.
Supervisor and subordinate perceptions diverged on the extent to which they felt the organization
had violated its obligations to provide fair pay, opportunities for advancement and a good
employment relationship. Furthermore, the greater degree to which subordinates felt that the
contract had been breached, the lower ratings they were awarded for job performance by
supervisors. Subordinates were also more likely to attribute contract breach to the organization’s
disregard for its obligations, whilst supervisors attributed it to situations beyond the
organization’s control.
10
![Page 18: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
1.13 The Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours
As mentioned previously, Coyle-Shapiro (2002) has explored the effect of the psychological
contract upon employee organizational citizenship behaviours. The research, conducted within
the public sector, focused upon the perceptions of employees regarding the employer’s
obligations and inducements associated with the psychological contract, and the role that both
present and potential future inducements have upon OCBs. The fact that the psychological
contract has been linked to a number of traditional OCB dimensions, for example helping
behaviours (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998), leads Coyle-Shapiro (2002) to predict that the
psychological contract framework may predict a variety of citizenship behaviours. Furthermore,
the psychological contract framework is argued to be distinct from other social-exchange theories
as it not only takes into consideration employees behaviours in response to present inducements
from the organization, but also the effect of anticipated future inducements upon behaviour. For
example, an individual may feel that it is not only an employer’s obligation to promote them
based on their present performance, but also to promote them further based on future
performances (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Therefore, employees may engage in OCBs in order to
enhance the likelihood of future inducements becoming available.
Coyle-Shapiro’s (2002) findings suggested that the anticipation of future inducements was
important in explaining the willingness of employees to engage in OCBs beyond the
‘motivational influences of present inducements’ (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002: p941). Employees were
also found to engage in OCBs in response to inducements that were being presently received
from the employer. Coyle-Shapiro (2002) suggests a twin track system of employee reciprocity,
whereby employees show a reactive reciprocation in response to present inducements and a pro-
active reciprocation for future inducements. The degree to which an employee accepts the norm
of reciprocity, the belief that favourable treatment from others is responded to in similar fashion,
affects the levels of OCBs shown by employees in response to the inducements they receive from
their employer. Furthermore, the trust that an employee has in their employer helps to strengthen
the relationship between future anticipated inducements and proactive OCBs. Regarding the
different dimensions of OCB, Coyle-Shapiro (2002) reports that loyalty behaviours appear to be
linked to how an employee feels about their treatment within the exchange relationship, whereas
helping and change-oriented citizenship behaviours are engaged as a proactive step in facilitating
the realization of future inducements.
1.14 Investment in Employee Health
The above discussion has highlighted several points regarding organizational investment in the
workforce. It has been shown that organizational investment in employees can result in
significant benefits for an organization. In particular, organizational citizenship behaviours
(Podsakoff et al., 2000) have been demonstrated in response to organizational investment.
Podsakoff et al’s (2002) meta-analysis findings indicate that discretional actions such as OCBs do
have significant benefits for organizations in terms of their social environments and actual
production levels. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) have demonstrated that perceived support
from an organization can result in employees showing increased organizational citizenship
behaviours and commitment towards the organization. Coyle-Shapiro (2002) has also
demonstrated that employees have certain expectations of the organization they work for, if they
11
![Page 19: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
feel those expectations have been met and trust that they will continue to be met, they will
demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviours and commitment to the organization. Lee and
Allen (2002) have also found that an individual’s considered appraisal of an organization affects
the extent to which they will show citizenship behaviours.
It would seem logical then, in a relatively hostile working environment such as the North Sea, for
investment in health by the operating company to bring benefits in terms of employee behaviours.
Organizational investment in the health of the workforce may provide strong indications of the
organizational support for the well-being of the workforce, and thus result in reciprocal actions by
the workforce. Furthermore, offshore employees may perceive a continued organizational interest
in their health and well-being as part of their psychological contract, and thus will react positively
to the organization meeting its perceived obligations. Support for the idea that organizational
investment in health results in positive employee behaviours was found in the first phase of the
current research project. The present phase of the project intends to examine this finding further,
and to explore the hypothesis that organizational support for the health and well-being of offshore
employees helps to build a positive perception of the installation’s health climate, and thus the
organization’s support for the well-being of workers. This positive perception, in turn, impacts
upon organizational citizenship behaviours, safety behaviours and organizational commitment.
The Health at Work questionnaire was designed to examine this hypothesis through obtaining
data regarding how offshore employees feel about the support for their health provided by the
organization and their colleagues. Data were also gathered regarding the personal health
behaviours, organizational citizenship behaviours and safety behaviours of offshore workers. The
following sections will analyse the relationship between the perceptions of support for well-being
and their reported organizational citizenship behaviours, safety behaviours and organizational
commitment. An examination will also be made of the qualitative data provided by medics
regarding the organizations support for employee health.
12
![Page 20: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
2 Research Method
The current study was carried out in two stages. The initial phase involved the development of the
‘Your Health at Work’ questionnaire and the following phase involved the deployment of the
questionnaire to all installations participating in the study.
Stage 1: Development of the Your Health at Work Survey
The content and structure of the questionnaire was developed from information and feedback
from a range of different sources. In the initial stage of development the direction of the
questionnaire was provided by the findings made in the first report as well as the published
literature relating to health at work, health and safety climate and management, organizational
commitment and support, and citizenship behaviours. A comprehensive review of the literature
was conducted and a range of published scales and measures were collated in order to generate a
substantial pool of questionnaire items. In particular, a new health climate tool was developed to
assess perceptions of health climate relative to reported investment / facilitation of health in the
workplace. The health climate tool included measures of organizational support, supervisor and
colleague support, healthy behaviours, the management of occupational health and
communication about general health issues. A questionnaire specific for installation medics was
also developed in order to gain a greater insight into the medic’s perspective on health at work
issues. The HSE, the offshore medics and Health & Safety managers for the participating
organizations provided feedback on the questionnaires. New drafts of the questionnaire were
again reviewed and, after comments were received from all sources, final amendments were
made.
Stage 2 - Main study.
A survey schedule was negotiated with all participating companies in order to allow an 8-week
survey phase (to cover crew rotations where possible) on each installation. At the outset, the
sample comprised of 6 participating companies and a total of 25 installations. The schedule had a
survey window from April 2004 through until July 2004. For the majority of participating
companies the medics were allocated as survey facilitators and were the focal point of all
communication with the installation. Medics were issued with a brief outline about the purpose of
the project and were also provided with slides and posters to introduce the survey to the
workforce in the more formal setting of a safety meeting or similar event. The final questionnaire
comprised an 8-page document (see Appendix I). The front cover provided respondents with a
brief overview of the purpose of the study as well as instructions for completing the
questionnaire. Details regarding the confidentiality of returned questionnaires were provided, as
was information regarding the charity prize draw incentive. Each participating installation
received a survey pack containing copies of the questionnaire and an instruction/advice letter for
the medic detailing the preferred methods for questionnaire promotion, dissemination, collection
and return. Pre-addressed envelopes allowing the confidential return of individual questionnaires
were supplied for each questionnaire. Instructions for questionnaire distribution were that the
questionnaires would be circulated to all personnel on-board with the exception of very transitory
or visiting staff who would not have had the requisite knowledge to comment on long-term health
management on the installation. The survey pack also included the Health at Work Questionnaire
for Medics (See Appendix II), which the offshore medics were requested to complete.
13
![Page 21: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
2.1 Description of the Health at Work Questionnaire
The ‘Health at Work 2004’ questionnaire contained an introductory text and 11 separate sections
each identified by a title bar and an opening paragraph explaining how to complete that section.
In the introductory paragraph, information was supplied about the previous Health at Work 2002
study and the purpose of the current study. Information was also supplied for completing the
questionnaire and respondents were reminded that their responses were strictly confidential.
Respondents were also urged to answer the questions as accurately as possible and to carefully
consider their responses in relation to the installation they work on. Respondents were instructed
to return completed questionnaires in the addressed envelopes supplied with the questionnaires.
Section 1: General information
This section was designed to gain some basic information about the respondents and incorporated
six key questions. Respondents were asked to indicate the name of the installation they were
presently working on, whether they were employed by an operating or contracting company,
whether they were in a supervisory role, whether they were a member of the core crew, the
number of years they had worked on the installation and the number of years they had worked
offshore. Respondents were reassured that it would not be possible to identify anyone personally
from the data they provided.
Section 2: Health on this Installation
This section focussed on the health-related activities that were possible to undertake on the
installations. The aim of section 2 was to gain an insight into the degree to which health-related
behaviours were facilitated on the installation. Respondents were required to indicate their
agreement, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree / 5=Strongly Agree), with 20
statements describing the health activities that can be undertaken on the installation. The
statements referred to getting advice about health issues, being able to exercise regularly, being
able to relax, being able to avoid unhealthy products and being able to take part in organised
health activities. The activity items were based on items included in measures of health
promotion at work, such as Golaszewski & Fisher’s (2002) health promotion measures.
Section 3: Support from the Operator
The intention of section 3 was to ask respondents how they felt about the general support
provided by the organization largely responsible for the installation. Respondents were asked to
indicate their agreement, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree / 5=Strongly Agree),
with 20 statements describing the operating company’s commitment to the well-being of
employees, the importance placed upon the needs and opinions of employees, and the value that
is placed upon the work done by employees. These items were to be used for generating an index
of perceived operator support (POS). The items in section 3 were taken from scales used by
Eisenberger et al. (1986) and by Basen-Engquist, Hudson, Tripp and Chamberlain (1998).
Section 4: Support from the Supervisor & Workmates
This section regarded the support that respondents felt they received from their immediate
supervisor and workmates. The aim of the section was to measure the degree of support that is
provided by supervisors and workmates in terms of the respondent’s well-being and completion
of work. Section 4 was broken into two subsections, one each for the items regarding support
14
![Page 22: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
from supervisors and from workmates. Each subsection had 8 statements to which respondents
were required to indicate their agreement, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree /
5=Strongly Agree). Statements regarding the immediate supervisor referred to the support and
willingness to listen shown by the supervisor, the concern the supervisor shows for those working
under him/her, the instructions, advice and feedback provided by the supervisor, the help the
supervisor provides in getting the job done and the degree to which respondents trust their
immediate supervisors. Statements regarding the respondent’s workmates referred to the concern
that workmates show for one another, the degree to which the respondents feel they are cared
about as a person, the training, advice and feedback provided by workmates, the help workmates
provide in getting the job done, and the degree to which respondents trust their workmates. The
items for this section were taken from Basen-Engquist et al’s (1998) health climate measures.
Section 5: Your Health
This section asked respondents about their health, fitness and dietary habits. This was done in
order to get an overview of employee health habits and to develop an overall measure of the state
of employee health on each installation. Section 5 was broken down into several segments. The
first section asked about how respondents rated their health, their age, previous accident
involvement, past visits to the medic and advice asked, or given, by medic. Respondents were
also required to provide their height and weight, so their Body Mass Index could be calculated.
Section 5 also enquired about dietary habits, with respondents indicating the regularity with
which they avoid unhealthy foods and eat healthy foods. Respondents also indicated whether they
were, or ever had been smokers, and if so were they interested in stopping smoking. Furthermore,
respondents noted whether they regularly managed to get the recommended amount of
cardiovascular exercise (i.e. at least 30 minutes, three times a week) when offshore, and if not, the
reasons for this. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had taken part in any
health promotions activities in the past year and also whether they had received useful health
promotion advice in the past 12 months.
Section 6: Citizenship Behaviours
The aim of section 6 was to develop an index of the organizational citizenship behaviours that
respondents undertake on the various installations. This section asked respondents about the
positive actions they take that are beyond the confines of a job role, and can be termed as extra-
role, or organizational citizenship, behaviours. Respondents were required to indicate the extent
to which, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not at all / 5=To a great extent), they engaged in a range of
organizational citizenship behaviours. These behaviours included making suggestions to improve
and revise work procedures, taking action to improve the organization and the installation,
informing management about unproductive or unsafe practices and speaking up about work issues
or rules that do not contribute to the achievement of the installation goals. The items for this scale
were taken from Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler (2000) and Tsui et al. (1997) and were designed to
measure the level of organizational citizenship behaviours that respondents feel they demonstrate
whilst working on the installation.
Section 7: Satisfaction with Occupational Health Management
Section 7 measured the level of satisfaction respondents have with the occupational health
management on their installation. Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which, on a
5-point Likert scale (1=Very satisfied / 5=Very dissatisfied), they were satisfied with 13
15
![Page 23: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
occupational health activities managed by the installation. These activities included the
surveillance of certain work-related conditions such as respiratory diseases, vibration related
diseases and hearing loss;, the availability of protective equipment such as for eye protection,
chemical gloves, ear defenders, and safety training for manual handling, PPE, COSHH, safe use
of tools, avoiding hearing damage and avoiding vibration related diseases. Following this,
respondents were also required to indicate the type of work they did, and also when they last had
their hearing checked, the measures they use to protect their hearing, whether they suffered from
hearing loss, and if so for how long had they suffered from this loss.
Section 8: Support for Health
Section 8 regards the role of supervisors and workmates in helping colleagues to improve and
maintain their health. The aim of section 8 was to develop an index of the perceived support for
employee health that is provided by supervisors and workmates. Respondents were required to
indicate their agreement, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree / 5=Strongly Agree),
with 14 statements, 6 for supervisors and 8 for workmates, describing the role that colleagues
play in their health. The supervisor items referred to the degree to which supervisors ensure that
employee health is not endangered by work, that health rules are enforced, that health and safety
issues can be discussed with supervisors and the sympathy afforded by supervisors for health
problems. The workmates items referred to the support and encouragement that workmates would
provide if respondents started dieting, exercising or stopped smoking, the degree to which
workmates share health information and give help and support when asked. Items were taken
from the scale developed by Ribisl & Reischl (1993).
Section 9: Safety Behaviour
Section 9 consisted of items concerning the safety behaviours of individual employees.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree /
5=Strongly Agree), they showed a range of safety behaviours. In total 9 items describing certain
safety behaviours were incorporated in the section. Items referred to monitoring the safety
behaviours of workmates, correcting potential safety problems, informing management about
safety problems and reporting near misses, minor accidents and hazardous working conditions.
This scale was used to build a safety behaviour index measuring the level of safety related
behaviours undertaken by installation employees.
Section 10: You and this Installation
Section 10 referred to the commitment that respondents felt with regard to the installation they
worked on. Respondents were asked to indicate whether, on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly
Disagree / 5=Strongly Agree), they agreed with a range of statements describing feelings about
working on the installation. In total 7 items describing feelings of organizational commitment
were incorporated into section 10. Items referred to the sense of belonging respondents felt
towards the installation, the contribution they make to the installation and the pride they feel
working for the installation. The items were taken from a measure used by Coyle-Shapiro &
Kessler (2000) to measure the organizational commitment shown and felt by employees.
Section 11: Further Comments
Section 11 gave respondents the chance to provide any further comments regarding the
management of health and safety on their installation.
16
![Page 24: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
2.2 Description of the Medics Health at Work Questionnaire
The questionnaire developed for the installation medics served the purpose of assessing the
facilities and resources that were available for employee health and well being on the various
installations. The medics’ questionnaire also obtained objective numerical data with regard to
sick bay visits for injuries and illnesses. All medics on installations participating in the main
‘Your Health at Work Survey’ were issued with copies of the Medics Questionnaire and were
encouraged to complete the questionnaire due to its vital role in the study. The medic
questionnaire went through a development process similar to the workforce questionnaire
discussed above. The questionnaire incorporated nine sections and a cover page, which
introduced the study and detailed the structure of the project. Respondents were asked to answer
as accurately and frankly as possible and to consider carefully their responses in relation to the
installation on which they worked. Space was also provided for medics to discuss related issues
that may not have been tackled directly by questionnaire. The medics were thanked for their
involvement in and co-operation with the survey.
Section 1: General Information
This first section required some general information from the installation medics. Four questions
were included, with medics being asked to enter the name of the installation that they worked on,
to indicate whether they were employed by either the operating company or a medical agency and
to state the number of years they had worked offshore, and on the current installation, as a medic.
Section 2: Screening & Surveillance
In this section medics supplied information that enabled an assessment of the health screening
and surveillance activities that had taken place on the installations in the 12 months prior to the
survey. Medics were asked to provide details about the information distributed on the installation
regarding screening for health problems. Medics were also asked to provide details on whether
screening had been provided for blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes, whether all members of
the workforce were eligible for the screening and whether health risk assessments were provided
for the installation employees. Medics also detailed whether screening and surveillance had been
conducted for certain occupation-related conditions and whether screening was available to all
members of the workforce.
Section 3: Exercise and Facilities
In this section installation medics were required to detail the facilities and opportunities that are
available for the workforce to undertake physical exercise. Medics were required to indicate
whether information about the importance of exercise was distributed and to give details about
the gym facilities. Medics were also asked to provide details about any health promotion
activities that had been undertaken during the past 12 months on the installation. Lastly, medics
also indicated whether the operating company sponsors sports events or teams, whether it has a
written policy statement supporting employee physical fitness, and whether incentives are
provided for engaging in physical activity.
Section 4: Smoking Management
This section involved the provision of information about the management of smoking. The medic
provided details about the availability of information regarding the dangers of smoking, the extent
17
![Page 25: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
of any smoking bans and the recreational facilities provided in smoking and non-smoking
recreational rooms. The medics also stated whether the installation operator has a written
smoking policy alongside punitive measures for non-compliance with this policy. Furthermore,
medics were also required to indicate whether during the past 12 months any direct activities had
been taken in relation to smoking cessation, and if so, what form these activities took. Lastly,
medics stated whether tobacco products were sold on the installation, and if so, were they sold at
a tax-discounted price.
Section 5: Stress
Medics were asked to provide information about workforce stress and the management of stress
on the installation. Medics provided information on any training or activities relating to stress that
had been conducted during the past 12 months.
Section 6: Diet and healthy eating
Medics were asked questions about diet and healthy eating on the installation. The questions
concerned whether any healthy eating information had been distributed in the past year, and
whether any healthy eating activities had been undertaken, and if so what form these took.
Medics also indicated which of a range of healthy foods were available in the galley on a daily
basis, and if healthy options in the galley were identified by any special labelling.
Section 7: Organizational Support
In this section medics were asked about the general levels of support for health management
activities on the installation. Medics detailed whether any personal health promotion programmes
or initiatives had been run in the past 12 months, and if so, what specific health behaviours were
highlighted in these programmes. The medic also indicated whether the installation has a person
responsible for the delivery of health promotion, whether an employee health needs assessment
and evaluation of health promotion efforts is conducted every 12 months, and whether the
installation has provided general health promotional messages to employees in the past 12
months.
Section 8: Accidents, Incidents & Your Role
Medics were asked to provide objective data from records, or at least an approximation if this was
not possible, on incident rates for illness and injury on the installation. Medics indicated the
number of illness or injuries during the past 12 months along with the number of medevacs, and
circumstances of medevacs. Medics also reported the percentage of visits related to general
personal health improvement, the training and involvement of medics in the promotion of a range
of health activities, and the details of any training courses that had been conducted in a range of
occupational health areas during the past year. Lastly, medics indicated whether the installation
had received any awards for health promotion activities.
Section 9: Further comments
Space was provided for medics to make any further comments or suggestions regarding the
management of health and safety on the installation.
18
![Page 26: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
3 Results I: Descriptive Analysis of Health at Work Questionnaire
The initial analysis of the Health at Work questionnaire explored the differences in response
patterns across the various sections of the instrument. The results presented include both the
questionnaire responses for the whole sample, and also the responses for each individual
participating installation.
3.1 Installation types, sample size and response rates
A total of 828 questionnaires were received from 25 installations operating on the UK
Continental Shelf. An appraisal of the initial installation response rates revealed that the mean
response rate was approximately 20%. This was then taken as the cut off rate and installations
with a response rate lower than 20% were excluded from the sample. Consequently 703
questionnaires from 18 installations were available for final analysis.
The term ‘installation’ refers to Fixed Production platforms, Drilling rigs, Well-service vessels
and Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessels (FPSOs). Sample sizes and response
rates for each installation are given in Table 3.1. Response rates are typically based on the
personnel on board (POB), defined as the number of crew who routinely stayed on the installation 1
overnight at the time of the survey . A number of survey co-ordinators, usually the installation
medics, supplied details of the actual number of questionnaires disseminated, which was also
used to calculate the response rate.
N Response
POB A1 51 180 A3 37 130 A5 77 180 B6 60 190 B8 26 100 C9 30 80 C10 34 120 E12 26 116 E13 28 120 E15 29 55 F16 34 128 F18 26 102 F19 52 148 F20 41 100 F21 15 40 F23 16 62 F24 27 125 G1 94 100
703 2076
Installation Total
Rate % 28.3 28.5 42.8 31.6 26.0 37.5 28.3 22.4 23.3 52.7 26.6 25.5 35.1 41.0 37.5 25.8 21.6 94.0
Overall 34.9 (mean)
Table 3.1 Sample size and response rates across 18 installations
It is assumed that the POB doubled represents the population on the installation
19
1
![Page 27: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Following the exclusion of installations with response rates lower than 20%, the response rates
for the remaining installations ranged between 21.6% and 94%, with a mean of 34.9%. Several
factors can explain varying or low response rates. For example, response rates will have been
dependent upon the style of administration of the questionnaires and also the motivational bias of
individuals to complete the questionnaire.
3.2 Demographic information
Occupation
The job responsibilities of respondents were varied. Table 3.2 provides the percentages of
respondents who performed eight of the main occupations. The type of operations that each
installation undertakes varies considerably, thus this is reflected in the proportions of respondents
within each occupation on the different installations. Overall, maintenance followed by
production and administration/management accounted for the largest proportion of occupations.
Deck No
% % % % % % % % % A1 0 4 6 0 A3 0 11 43 14 8 8 0 0 8 A5 0 4 38 14 4 13 1 6 9 B6 17 10 0 50 5 2 0 10 2 B8 42 8 4 23 0 4 0 0 C9 43 7 0 17 7 0 10 7 7 C10 24 15 0 3 12 3 6 3 E12 31 4 0 31 15 0 15 0 4 E13 25 7 0 32 7 0 11 18 0 E15 3 21 0 31 10 14 0 10 10 F16 15 12 12 6 12 9 9 F18 8 23 0 35 8 8 4 0 12 F19 19 21 0 6 0 2 F20 5 24 10 27 2 0 20 12 0 F21 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 F23 6 13 0 19 6 19 0 25 13 F24 0 0 4 4 19 7 G1 2 9 29 24 2 10 1 15 8
13 15 9 23 6 6 11 10 6
Install Prod. Admin Drilling Maint. Ops. Const. Cater. Other / manag. crew
20 20 18 10 18
19
32
12 12
23 12 17
20
41 11 11
Overall
Table 3.2 Percentages within the eight most common job functions across installations
20
![Page 28: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Supervisors and years of tenure
Table 3.3 below provides details of the proportion of respondents who hold supervisory positions
and the number of years that respondents have worked on each installation. 35% of respondents
indicated that they held a supervisory position. However, this proportion varied within the
sample. Overall, 19% of respondents had worked on their installation for less than a year while
45% indicated they had worked on their installation between one and five years. 22% had spent
six to ten years on their installation while 14% had been on their installation for more than 10
years.
Please note that in this table (and tables on the following pages), ‘Valid N’ refers to the
number of respondents who provided meaningful data for that specific item. This number
might not necessarily match the total number of respondents on that installation.
< 1 No N Year N
% % % % % A1 51 51 29 41 20 10 51 A3 41 34 34 51 6 9 35 A5 45 75 20 76 4 0 75 B6 25 60 10 40 13 37 60 B8 39 26 8 C9 31 29 17 31 10 41 29 C10 24 34 29 27 21 24 34 E12 12 25 8 35 58 0 26 E13 25 28 18 46 36 0 E15 29 28 4 43 25 29 28 F16 33 33 6 0 34 F18 39 26 16 52 28 4 25 F19 31 51 15 33 50 2 F20 48 40 10 61 27 2 41 F21 20 15 73 0 F23 50 16 0 50 19 31 16 F24 52 27 22 59 11 7 G1 32 87 14 50 21 15 90
35 685 19 45 22 14 692
Install Supervisor Valid 1 to 5 6 to 10 > 10 Valid Years Years Years
39 19 35 26
28
79 15
52
13 13 15
27
Overall
Table 3.3 i) The percentage of respondents holding a supervisory role and ii) the years of tenure of all
respondents
21
![Page 29: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Employer, core crew and age of respondents
Table 3.4 below provides details of employer (operating company versus contractor company),
core crew status and respondent age. Typically, fewer than 50% of respondents indicated that
they were employed directly by an operating company. However, this proportion varied
considerably within the sample (see Table 3.4 below). Overall, 84% of respondents identified
themselves as members of core crew on their installation, with some variation among
installations. The large proportion of core crew members participating in the survey indicates
conformity with the instructions to, where possible, disseminate the survey to experienced
installation crew rather than more transient members of the offshore workforce. 10% of all
respondents were aged 20-30 years and 27% of respondents were aged between 31 – 40 years old.
The greatest proportion of respondents (37%) fell into the 41-50 years band, whilst around a
quarter (26%) were older than 51 years of age.
No N N N % % % % % %
A1 44 50 86 51 14 33 27 25 51 A3 34 35 71 34 27 32 24 16 37 A5 46 67 92 74 22 35 34 9 B6 33 57 80 59 7 17 37 40 60 B8 65 26 96 26 12 19 31 38 26 C9 76 29 97 30 3 20 20 57 30 C10 53 34 91 34 3 18 32 47 34 E12 8 26 92 26 4 27 38 31 26 E13 11 28 86 28 0 25 54 21 28 E15 4 28 96 28 10 14 41 34 29 F16 41 34 91 34 12 26 41 21 34 F18 67 24 88 26 15 27 46 12 26 F19 60 52 90 51 17 35 35 13 52 F20 37 41 88 41 5 17 56 22 41 F21 7 27 47 13 15 F23 56 16 100 16 6 38 31 25 16 F24 30 27 59 27 0 33 33 33 27 G1 41 87 89 88 12 42 32 14 93
40 676 84 688 10 27 37 26 702
Install Operator Valid Core Valid 20-30 31-40 41-50 51 + Valid Employee Crew Years Years Years Years
77
15 20 15 13
Overall
Table 3.4 i) The percentage of respondents employed by the operating companies ii) the percentage of
respondents identifying themselves as core crew and iii) the age of respondents
22
![Page 30: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
3.3 Accident Rates
In order to assess the self reported accident rate, respondents were asked whether they had been
involved in an accident/incident on their installation that required a trip to the sick bay during the
previous 12 months. Table 3.5 below indicates the self reported accident rate for each installation
surveyed and the overall accident rate for the sample.
No % N A1 2
A3 11 37 A5 8 B6 7 60 B8 0 C9 13 30 C10 0 E12 8 26 E13 11 28 E15 7 29 F16 6 F18 8 26 F19 4 F20 2 41 F21 0 F23 6 16 F24 11 27 G1 11 94
6 703
Install Accident Valid
51
77
26
33
34
51
15
Overall
Table 3.5 Self reported accident data
23
![Page 31: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
3.4 Personal Health
Respondents were asked to rate their current state of health. The results in Table 3.6 below
indicate that the great majority of respondents consider themselves to be in either good or very
good health.
Good Poor No % % % % % N A1 4 8 2
A3 3 11 70 16 0 37 A5 5 1 B6 13 38 40 7 2 60 B8 15 35 42 8 0 26 C9 7 20 67 7 0 30 C10 12 35 38 15 0 E12 8 35 54 4 0 26 E13 11 50 29 7 4 28 E15 7 39 46 7 0 28 F16 6 9 3 F18 12 27 58 4 0 26 F19 6 8 0 F20 5 37 51 7 0 41 F21 0 0 0 F23 13 25 63 0 0 16 F24 4 0 G1 3 28 60 9 0 94
7 32 52 8 1 702
Install Excellent V Good Fair Valid
35 51 51
26 55 13 77
34
35 47 34
37 50 52
53 47 15
15 63 19 27
Overall
Table 3.6 Self-rated current state of health
24
![Page 32: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Body Mass Index
Body Mass Index scores were calculated from the weight and height information supplied by 2
respondents using the standard formula (Weight (kgs)/Height (metres) ) for this estimation. BMI
scores were categorized into standard norms for Normal (BMI 18.5-24.9), Overweight (25-29.9)
and Obese (30+). The percentage of respondents falling into each category is identified below in
Table 3.7. On average approximately half (52%) of respondents were classified as being
overweight, whilst 15% were calculated to be obese.
No BMI BMI BMI N % % %
A1 26 60 14 50 A3 35 46 19 37 A5 45 45 9 75 B6 34 55 10 58 B8 35 62 4 26 C9 20 57 23 30 C10 32 44 24 34 E12 36 52 12 25 E13 33 56 11 27 E15 29 57 14 28 F16 23 53 23 30 F18 42 46 13 24 F19 27 63 10 51 F20 27 51 22 41 F21 40 53 7 15 F23 47 40 13 15 F24 33 41 26 27 G1 42 47 11 94
34 52 15 687
Install Normal Overweight Obese Valid
Overall
Table 3.7 Average Body Mass Index scores
Age & BMI
Examining BMI by age group indicates that those in the 20-30 year age group are more likely to
display BMI scores within the normal range than older respondents (Please see table 3.8 below).
Similar proportions of those in the 31-40, 41-50 and 51+ year age group fall into the obese BMI
range.
BMI BMI BMI Age % % %
32 5
27 57 16 58 15
32 52 15
Normal Overweight Obese
20-30 years 63
31-40 years 41-50 years 28 51-65 years
Table 3.8 Body Mass Index scores by age
25
![Page 33: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
3.5 Consultations with the medic
Respondents were asked whether they had consulted the medic in the past 12 months, and if so,
the reasons for any visits. Approximately half (47%) of respondents reported having visited the
medic in the previous year, with the range being between 24% and 69%. The most common
reason for visiting the medic was cold or flu, as shown in table 3.9 below.
Headache No N Cond. N
% % % % % % A1 49 51 62 4 0 0
A3 49 37 41 6 6 29 18 17 A5 52 77 52 18 9 9 B6 48 60 48 14 0 17 21 29 B8 69 26 39 6 11 0 C9 43 30 50 6 13 13 19 16 C10 53 34 67 6 6 17 6 E12 27 26 44 0 33 11 11 9 E13 36 28 50 8 8 8 E15 66 29 30 10 15 25 20 20 F16 53 34 63 0 5 5 F18 24 25 0 17 33 0 50 6 F19 59 51 43 0 7 30 20 30 F20 54 41 36 9 5 23 27 22 F21 33 15 20 0 20 60 0 5 F23 44 16 0 14 43 14 29 7 F24 44 27 31 0 15 23 31 13 G1 44 94 41 15 2 15 35 44
47 701 40 7 13 17 24 351
Install Medical Valid Cold Existing Muscular Other Valid Consultations or Flu Pain
35 26
11 44
44 18
18
25 12
26 19
Overall
Table 3.9 i) Percentage of respondents who have visited the medic in the past 12 months and ii) breakdown
of reasons for consulting the medic
26
![Page 34: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Advice from the medic
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had requested advice from the medic about
improving their general health or fitness. They were also asked to indicate whether they had ever
been offered advice from the medic regarding improving their general health and fitness.
Respondents also indicated whether they had ever felt ill but not reported this to the medic in
order to avoid a medical referral. The breakdown of percentages is shown in table 3.10 below. On
average 42% of respondents have asked advice from the medic regarding their general heath, with
a range of between 20% and 72%. 56% of respondents reported that the medic had offered advice
to them regarding their general health, with a range of 27% to 71%. With respect to not reporting
feeling ill in order to avoid a medical referral, an average of 17% of respondents claimed to have
done this.
Asked No N No N
% % % A1 32 50 31 51 24 51 A3 30 37 51 37 19 37 A5 25 77 69 77 19 77 B6 28 60 52 60 10 60 B8 42 26 50 26 23 26 C9 41 29 57 30 23 30 C10 53 34 62 34 18 34 E12 42 26 62 26 12 26 E13 50 28 68 28 11 28 E15 72 29 76 29 31 29 F16 47 34 71 33 18 33 F18 50 26 54 26 20 25 F19 50 52 62 52 17 52 F20 55 40 56 41 22 41 F21 20 15 27 15 7 F23 44 16 63 16 6 16 F24 33 27 52 27 11 27 G1 38 90 68 94 20 94
42 696 57 702 17 701
Install Valid Offered Valid Avoided Med Valid Advice Advice Referral
15
Overall
Table 3.10 i) The percentage of respondents who have asked the medic for advice, ii) who have been
offered advice from the medic and iii) who have avoided a medical referral
3.6 Smoking habits
Respondents were asked whether they were, or ever have been, smokers. Those respondents who
did report being smokers were asked whether they would be interested in quitting smoking. The
breakdown of respondents’ responses is shown in table 3.11 on the next page. Around a third
(31%) of respondents reported being smokers, with the highest proportion on any installation
being 57%, and the lowest 14%. A further 24% of respondents reported previously being a
smoker. Of those respondents that reported being smokers, 32% wished to quit smoking now, and
29% possibly wanted to quit.
27
![Page 35: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Never No N N
% % % % % A1 38 33 29 48 50 28 18
A3 45 19 35 31 40 47 15 A5 57 20 23 69 59 33 39 B6 32 20 48 56 44 33 18 B8 16 44 40 25 25 25 4 C9 30 11 59 27 25 50 8 C10 34 19 47 32 36 55 11 E12 23 12 65 26 33 67 6 E13 25 39 36 28 43 14 7 E15 31 31 38 29 56 33 9 F16 39 19 42 31 45 36 11 F18 13 21 67 24 33 67 3 F19 14 26 60 50 57 14 7 F20 32 24 44 41 54 38 13 F21 29 21 50 14 75 25 4 F23 31 13 56 16 40 60 5 F24 37 37 26 27 30 50 10 G1 33 24 43 90 20 16 30
31 24 45 664 32 29 218
Install Smoker Previous Valid Wish to Possibly Valid Smoker Smoked quit now want to quit
Overall
Table 3.11 i) The percentage of respondents who report being smokers and ii) wish to quit smoking.
3.7 Healthy behaviours on installations
Respondents were asked how often they eat various healthy foods, and how often they avoid
various unhealthy foods, whilst on the installation. The breakdown of responses is show in table
3.12 below. On average 83% of respondents report eating healthy foods and avoiding unhealthy
foods at least a few times a week. 14% of respondents report rarely, and 3% never, eating healthy
foods and avoiding unhealthy foods.
Never N
% % % % 1 10 28 40 21 731
1 6 23 43 27 730 2 720 4 21 20 10 45 722 6 26 27 35 7 731 2 12 38 19 29 729 3 10 30 16 41 728 4 12 24 11 49 732 3 14 29 25 29
Healthy eating habits Rarely A few times Once At every Valid a week a day meal
Eat available Fresh fruit
Eat fresh vegetables Choose healthy options 14 39 29 16 Reduce use of salt Eat more bran & fibre Avoid/reduce intake of fried food Avoid/reduce intake of desserts Avoid sugary or fizzy drinks
Overall
Table 3.12 The percentage of respondents who report eating healthy food, and avoiding unhealthy foods
28
![Page 36: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Exercise in the gym
Respondents indicated how often they managed to use the gym in order to get the recommended
amount of cardiovascular exercise every week (i.e. 30 minutes, three times a week). Around half
of respondents (48%) reported exercising never, rarely or only occasionally. A quarter of
respondents (25%) felt they received enough exercise from their work.
Never 3 x No N
% % % % % A1 10 33 24 22 12 51 A3 19 19 22 30 11 37 A5 9 22 77 B6 5 20 17 25 33 60 B8 12 8 23 26 C9 13 23 20 17 27 30 C10 3 38 34 E12 0 15 35 23 27 26 E13 19 15 11 41 15 27 E15 7 7 17 41 28 29 F16 6 21 34 F18 12 15 8 38 27 26 F19 8 8 21 42 21 52 F20 5 22 10 37 27 41 F21 20 13 27 13 27 15 F23 6 19 25 13 38 16 F24 15 30 19 15 22 27 G1 9 18 22 23 28 94
10 18 20 27 25 702
Install Rarely Occasionally Enough exercise Valid week from work
21 17 31
19 38
15 21 24
21 24 29
Overall
Table 3.13 How often respondents use the gym every week
Reasons for not using the gym
Respondents who reported never or rarely using the gym were asked why this was the case, the
breakdown of responses is shown in table 3.14 below. Each respondent provided several reasons,
but the most common reasons were that respondents were either too tired to exercise, or that they
disliked gyms.
Reasons for
not using gym %
Poor facilities 17
Gym Busy 26 Too tired 71 No interest 15 Dislike gyms 50 Injury 5 No time 40 Galley shut 13
Table 3.14 Reasons for not using the gym
29
![Page 37: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
3.8 Health Promotion
Respondents were asked whether they had taken part in any organised health promotion activities
during the past 12 months. On average 38% of respondents indicated they had done so, with a
range of 7% to 68% (Please see table 3.15 below).
No N
A1 36 50 A3 38 37 A5 25 76 B6 43 60 B8 50 26 C9 27 30 C10 36 33 E12 68 25 E13 61 28 E15 30 27 F16 59 34 F18 20 25 F19 43 51 F20 38 37 F21 7 15 F23 20 15 F24 54 24 G1 42 87
38 680
Install Health Promotion Valid Activities %
Overall
Table 3.15 Percentage of respondents who have taken part in organised health promotion activities during
the past 12 months.
Health Promotion Advice
Respondents were also asked whether they had received health promotion advice or information
regarding several health related topics. Table 3.16 below lists the different topics alongside the
percentage of respondents who had received advice and found it useful. The most common topic
on which advice had been received was healthy eating (72%) and hearing protection (68%),
whilst managing stress was the least common topic for which advice was provided (36%).
None N
% % % 5 23 700
58 6 38 681 7 46 615
38 6 56 648 45 5 651 36 7 57 660
4 29 685 52 6 43
Topics on which Yes - helpful advice Yes - but the advice Valid health advice has has been received was unhelpful given
been given Healthy Eating 72 Fitness & Exercise Stopping Smoking 47 Alcohol Consumption Losing Weight 50 Managing Stress Protecting Your Hearing 68
Overall
Table 3.16 Percentage of respondents who received advice, and found it useful, on various health related
topics.
30
![Page 38: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
3.9 Satisfaction with occupational health management
Respondents were asked how satisfied they felt regarding the management of various
occupational health activities, including health surveillance, availability of PPE and training.
Table 3.17 below lists the various activities and the degree to which respondents were satisfied
with their management. On average 71% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied
with occupational health management, and only 9% were dissatisfied. In particular respondents
were satisfied with the availability of PPE equipment. However, respondents were less satisfied
with training in the safe use of tools and equipment (35%) and health surveillance for respiratory
diseases (49%).
% % % N 49 38 14 517 62 27 11 520 67 21 12 675 86 12 2 652
6 2 91 7 2 667
5 3 718 74 20 6 703 80 18 2 720 65 26 9 700
694 69 23 8 709 61 28 12 583 71 20 9
Occupational health activity Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Valid
Health surveillance for respiratory diseases Health surveillance for vibration related diseases Health surveillance for noise related hearing loss Availability of PPE for respiratory protection Availability of PPE for eye protection 93 719 Availability of chemical gloves Availability of ear defenders 92 Training for manual handling Training for correct use of PPE Training in COSHH Training in the safe use of tools and equipment 35 54 28 Training to avoid hearing damage Training to avoid vibration related diseases
Overall
Table 3.17 Percentage of respondents who were satisfied with the occupational health management
31
![Page 39: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
3.10 Respondents hearing
Respondents were asked to indicate when they had last had their hearing checked and 81%
indicated that they had their hearing checked in the past year (Table 3.18).
< 6 No N
% % % % A1 33 35 31 0
A3 38 27 32 3 37 A5 32 32 35 0 B6 33 40 27 0 60 B8 16 64 20 0 C9 47 40 13 0 30 C10 24 50 26 0 E12 46 42 12 0 25 E13 50 43 7 0 28 E15 41 48 10 0 29 F16 41 47 13 0 F18 42 50 8 0 26 F19 53 37 10 0 F20 49 39 12 0 41 F21 40 20 40 0 F23 56 38 6 0 16 F24 41 44 15 0 27 G1 40 31 29 0 90
40 41 19 0 693
Install 6 to 12 1 to 5 6 to 10 Valid Months Months Years Years
51
74
26
34
33
51
15
Overall
Table 3.18 Time since respondents last had their hearing checked
Measures for protecting hearing
Respondents were also asked to indicate the measures that they use to protect their hearing in the
workplace. The most common of these measures are shown below in table 3.19
Usage % N
684
41 684 PPE 31 684
2 684
Hearing Valid Protection
Ear Defenders 26
Ear Plugs
None Required
Table 3.19 Measures used by respondents to protect their hearing
Hearing Loss
Respondents were also asked whether they suffered from hearing loss, and if so for how long had
they suffered from this loss (see table 3.20 overleaf). On average 23% of respondents suffered
from hearing loss, with a range of 8% to 40%. 36% of respondents reported having suffered the
loss for 1-5 years, 21% for 6-10 years, and 35% for over 10 years.
32
![Page 40: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
No N
% % % % % %
A1 20 0 30 30 20 51
A3 16 0 20 0 40 40 37 A5 20 0 7 27 27 33 77 B6 23 0 0 43 21 36 60 B8 8 0 0 50 50 0 C9 38 0 9 36 9 45 30 C10 35 0 9 36 27 27 34 E12 19 0 0 75 0 25 26 E13 22 0 17 17 50 28 E15 14 0 0 50 0 50 29 F16 28 0 0 44 33 22 34 F18 16 0 25 25 0 50 26 F19 20 11 0 44 22 22 52 F20 38 7 7 40 20 27 41 F21 40 0 0 33 33 33 15 F23 13 0 0 0 0 100 16 F24 19 0 0 60 20 20 27 G1 22 1 6 37 22 34 90
23 1 7 36 21 35 696
Install Suffered Loss for 6 to 12 1 to 5 6 to 10 10 + Valid hearing loss < 6 months months years years years
20
26
17
Overall
Table 3.20 i) percentage of respondents who suffer from hearing loss ii) the amount of time those suffering
from hearing loss have had impaired hearing
33
![Page 41: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
4 Results II: Descriptive Analysis of Medics Questionnaire
The initial analysis of the Medics Health at Work questionnaire explored the pattern of results
across the various sections of the instrument used to assess the facilities and resources that are
available to support employee well being offshore. Depending on the question items, the
breakdown of results are either for the total number of offshore medics, or the number of
installations that returned completed medics questionnaires. This is due to the fact that in some
cases two medics from the same installation provided conflicting data when answering certain
questionnaire items. This meant that it was not possible to generate a single breakdown of
questionnaire items across all the sampled installations.
4.1 Sample size, response rates and demographics
A total of 31 medics based on 19 installations completed the questionnaire. Out of that sample, 24
medic questionnaires from 15 installations were included in the final analysis due to those
installations meeting the response rate criterion. Out of the 24 medics, 54% were employed by the
operating company, and 46% by a medical agency, as shown in table 4.1
Medics Employed by Employed by Valid N operator medical agency N
% %
24 54 46 24
Table 4.1 i) The number of medics surveyed and ii) the percentage employed by the operating company
Offshore medics were asked to indicate the number of years they have spent offshore and on the
current installation. Table 4.2 details the breakdown of responses. Most of the medics had worked
offshore for more than 10 years (54%) and 46% had worked on the current installation for 1–5
years.
Less than 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years More than Valid
1 Year % % % 10 Years % N
Years worked offshore 4 21 21 54 24 Years worked on current installation 25 46 25 4 24
Table 4.2 i) Years worked offshore by medics and ii) years worked on the current installation
4.2 Health screening and surveillance
Table 4.3 details the percentage of medics who reported that their installation provides health
screening information and health risk assessments. In total all of the installations were reported to
provide information about health screening and health risk assessments.
Yes
% N 100 24
100 24
Valid
Installations providing Health screening information
Health risk assessments
Table 4.3 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides health screening information
and health risk assessments
34
![Page 42: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Screening for health problems
Table 4.4 lists the percentage of medics who report that the installation they work on provides
health screening for certain health problems, and that health screening is available for all
employees. The majority of medics report that their installation provides screening for blood
pressure (95%), cholesterol (79%) and dermatitis (80%). Only 25% of medics reported screening
for diabetes and 50% reported screening for hearing loss. All of the medics reported that any
screening done for blood pressure, cholesterol or diabetes was available to all employees. 83% of
medics reported that any screening for dermatitis, hearing loss, musculoskeletal problems, HAVs
or respiratory problems was available to all employees.
Yes % N 95 24
25 24 100 24 80 24
67 24 HAVs 71 24
71 24 13 24 83 24
Valid
Blood pressure Cholesterol 79 24 Diabetes Availability of above screening for all employees Dermatitis Hearing loss 50 24 Musculoskeletal problems
Respiratory problems Other Availability of above screening for all employees
Table 4.4 i) Percentage of medics who report that their installation has health screening for various health
problems and ii) whether that screening is available for all employees
Dissemination of health screening information
Table 4.5 details the methods through which health information was disseminated. The majority
of installations reported having information about health screening circulated by means of
workplace leaflets (91%) and the offshore medic (87%). Only 4% of medics report that their
installation has no formal procedure to disseminate health screening information.
Yes % N
54 24
91 24
54 24 8 4 24 4
Health screening information Valid disseminated by :
Organized education/information meetings
Workplace leaflets/posters By the medic 87 24 Recreational area leaflets/posters Supervisors 24 No formal procedure Other 24
Table 4.5 Percentage of medics who report that their installation uses various methods used for
disseminating health screening information
4.3 Exercise and fitness
Offshore medics were asked to indicate whether their installation provided information about the
importance of exercise, and if they have a written policy supporting employee fitness. Table 4.6
shows that all medics reported that their installation provided information about the importance of
35
![Page 43: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
exercise, however only 61% of medics reported that there was a specific written policy statement
supporting employee fitness
Yes % N 100 15
61 24
Valid
Information about the importance of exercise
A written policy statement supporting employee fitness
Table 4.6 i) Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides information about the
importance of exercise and ii) a written policy on employee fitness
Facilities and opportunities for physical exercise
Table 4.7 below details the percentage of medics who report that their installation provides
various facilities and opportunities for physical exercise. All installations reported having a gym,
and 87% of medics reported that health promoting exercise activities were on offer. However, just
23% of medics reported that offshore employees were provided with subsidized onshore gym
membership.
Yes % N 100 24
23 22
79 24
of and
Valid
A gym available for employee usage
Subsidized onshore gym membership Health promotion exercise activities 87 24 Sponsorship for sports events or teams Incentives for engaging in physical exercise 33 24
Table 4.7 Percentage medics who report that their installation provides various facilities
opportunities for physical exercise
Medics were also asked to give information about various exercise and fitness related activities,
as detailed in table 4.8 below. 70% of medics reported that their installation has had an on-site
exercise programme running for the past 12 months. However, just 37% of medics reported that
there had been an evaluation to assess the impact of the programme.
Yes % N
70 21 83 22
66 21 37 21
Valid
There was on-site exercise programme underway for the past year Availability of programme was promoted in multiple ways Written plan to identify and recruit high risk-individuals 20 19 Incentives were provided to increase participation Impact of programme was evaluated
Table 4.8 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides various exercise and fitness
related activities
36
![Page 44: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Table 4.9 below details the gym equipment that medics report being available for usage on the
installations. All installations had most gym equipment available.
% N 100 24 92 24 92 24 33 24
None 0
Valid
Available gym equipment Aerobic Free weights Resistance Machines Other
24
Table 4.9 Installation gym equipment
4.4 Smoking
Offshore medics were asked to report on the information provided on the installation with regard
to smoking, as detailed in table 4.10 below. All medics reported that their installation provided
information about the dangers of smoking, and most (95%) reported that their installation has a
written smoking policy.
Yes % N 100 15
95 23
87 23
about
Valid Installations providing
Information about the dangers of smoking
A written smoking policy A statement defining punitive measures for smoking policy non-compliance 78 23 Anti-smoking policy messages displayed throughout the installation
Table 4.10 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides various information
smoking
Installation smoking areas and leisure facilities
Offshore medics were asked to indicate the extent of smoking bans on their installation. All
installations were reported to have designated areas of the installation for smoking (Table 4.11).
Yes
% N 100 15 0 15
Valid
Smoking permitted in designated areas of the installation A smoking ban throughout the installation
Table 4.11 Percentage of installations that have either designated smoking areas or a total smoking ban
Offshore medics were also asked to indicate which leisure facilities were available in installation
smoking and non-smoking rooms. Table 4.12 overleaf indicates that in most cases leisure
facilities in smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms were roughly equal, with non-smoking
rooms containing slightly more facilities on average.
37
![Page 45: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
% %
100 96 50 62 62 83 5 37 13 70
Smoking room Non-smoking room
Comfortable seating 96 96
Television DVD/video library Newspapers & books Stereo/music Activity equipment
Table 4.12 Leisure facilities available in smoking and non-smoking rooms
Table 4.13 below details the percentage of medics who report that their installation provides
various facilities in regard to smoking. 83% of medics report that their installation has had direct
activities related to stopping smoking during the past 12 months, however only 13% reported that
their installation offers incentives for being a non-smoker and 57% reported that their installation
offers incentives for quitting smoking.
Yes % N 13 23
57 23 83 23 100 23 100 23
Valid
Incentives for being a non-smoker
Incentives for quitting smoking Direct activities related to smoking cessation during the past 12 months The sale of tobacco products Tobacco being sold at tax-discounted prices
Table 4.13 i) Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides activities related to smoking
cessation ii) incentives for quitting smoking and iii) the sale of tobacco products
Table 4.14 below details the percentage of medics who report that their installation takes various
actions with regard to smoking. 90% of medics report that their installation had performed an on-
site smoking cessation programme during the past 12 months. 95% of medics also reported that
their installation had highlighted the availability of the programme in multiple ways. However,
only 16% reported that incentives had been provided in order to increase participation in the
programme, and just under a third (30%) reported that there was a written plan to identify and
recruit high risk-individuals.
Yes Valid Smoking activity details % N
There was on-site smoking cessation programme underway for past year 90 21
Availability of smoking cessation programme was promoted in multiple ways 95 21 Written plan to identify and recruit high risk-individuals 30 20 Nicotine patches/gum provided/subsidized by installation 95 21 Incentives provided to increase participation in programme 16 19 Impact of stop smoking programme was evaluated 52 17
Table 4.14 i) Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides activities related to smoking
cessation ii) incentives for quitting smoking and iii) the sale of tobacco products
38
![Page 46: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
4.5 Stress
Offshore medics were asked to provide information about their installation’s health promotion
activities and training in relation to stress during the past 12 months. 78% reported that health
promotion activities had been undertaken, whilst 45% reported that training on stress had been
provided. Table 4.15 details the proportion of medics who report that their installation provides
stress related activities and training.
Yes
% N 78 23
45 22
Valid
Health promotion activities relating to stress or related issues in the past year
Training on stress related issues for management or medic in past 12 months
Table 4.15 i) Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides stress related activities and
ii) stress related training
Offshore medics were asked to report whether their installation had performed various activities
related to stress in the past year. Just 50% of medics reported that their installation had
implemented a stress management programme during the past year (See table 4.16).
Yes Valid % N
On-site stress management programme undertaken during past year 50 20 Availability of stress management programme was promoted in multiple ways 85 20 Written plan to identify and recruit high risk-individuals 10 20 Incentives provided to increase participation in programme 11 20 Impact of stress management programme was evaluated 10 18
Table 4.16 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides various stress related activities
4.6 Diet and healthy eating
Table 4.17 shows the percentage of medics who report that their installation takes various actions
with regard to healthy eating. All offshore medics reported that their installation had made
dieting and healthy eating information available during the past 12 months.
Yes % N 100 24
96 24 79 24
Valid
Information about dieting & healthy eating in the past 12 months
Health promotion activities relating to dieting & healthy eating in the past year Healthy options' in galley marked by special labelling
Table 4.17 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides various stress related activities
Table 4.18 overleaf details the percentage of medics who report that their installation has
performed various activities related to dieting and healthy eating. 86% of medics report that their
installation has had an on-site healthy eating programme running during the past year. However,
only 25% report that there are incentives to increase participation.
39
![Page 47: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Yes % N 86 24
92 24
25 23 18 22
Valid
On-site diet & healthy eating programme undertaken during the past year
Availability of diet & healthy eating programme was promoted in multiple ways Written plan to identify and recruit high risk-individuals 22 23 Incentives provided to increase participation in programme Impact of diet & healthy eating programme was evaluated
Table 4.18 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides various diet and healthy eating
activities
Available healthy food
Offshore medics were asked to indicate how often various healthy options were available in the
galley. Low fat spreads, fresh fruit and a salad bar were reported as being available all the time by
all respondents. Reduced fat cheese was reported as being available all the time by 46% of
medics and 25% of medics reported that non-fried potatoes and low fat mayonnaise were never
available.
Never % % % N 4 0
0 0 100 24 0 0 100 24 5 25 70 24 0 0 100 24 17 8 75 23 8 25 0 75 24 25 22 53 23 0 4 96 24 12 42 46 24 5 13 82 24 8 8 84 24
Following items were available Sometimes Always Valid in the galley on a daily basis Skimmed milk 96 24
Low fat spreads Fresh fruit Whole grain bread Salad bar Reduced fat salad dressing Steamed or baked vegetables 29 63 24 Non-fried potatoes Low fat mayonnaise Drinking water Reduced fat cheeses Low fat main meal options Low fat breakfast options
Table 4.19 Percentage of medics who report having various healthy foods available on the their
installations
4.7 Organizational support
Offshore medics provided information about the general measures taken by the organization to
support health management on their installation (see table 4.20 overleaf). 95% of medics reported
that general personal health promotion programmes had been undertaken in the past 12 months.
However, only 35% of medics reported that there had been an evaluation of health promotion
efforts in the past year.
40
![Page 48: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
% N 95 23
92 24 26 23 35 23 91 24
Valid Installations Providing
Organized general personal health promotion programmes in the past 12 months
An individual person responsible for the delivery of health promotion A health needs assessment during the past 12 months An evaluation of health promotion efforts during the past 12 months General health promotion messages to employees during the past 12 months
Table 4.20 Percentage of medics who report that their installation provides various measures in support of
health management
Table 4.21 below shows the percentage of offshore medics who report the various foci of health
promotion programmes. The most common reported health promotion programme was stopping
smoking (83%) and the least common was getting fit (58%)
Yes % N 67 23
83 24 58 24 75 24 73 24
Valid
Losing Weight
Stopping smoking Getting fit Healthy eating Other
Table 4.21 Percentage of medics who report various topics highlighted by health promotion programmes in
the past 12 months
4.8 Accidents, incidents and the role of the medic
Incidents and visits to the medic
Offshore medics were asked to detail the number of various types of incidents that had occurred
on the installation during the past 12 months. No fatalities, and only 2 cases of reportable
diseases, were reported. 60 dangerous occurrences were reported, as were 7 cases of major injury
and 17 cases of injuries incapacitating an individual for 3 or more days.
N N 0
j 5 15 j 13 15
40 13 2 15
Valid
Fatality 15
Ma or Injury Over 3 day In ury Dangerous Occurrence Reportable Disease
Table 4.22 Number of incidents taking place during the past 12 months
Table 4.23 (over the page) reports the total number of visits by workers to the sick bay during the
past 12 months. For the installations that provided these figures the number of sick bay visits was
5911, with an average of 537 per installation. Furthermore, the offshore medics report that an
average of 32% of visits were for personal health advice.
41
![Page 49: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Total Number visits to the sick bay Average Number of visits to the sick bay Average % of medic visits for personal health advice
N 5911 537 -
% -
-
32
Valid
N 11 11 21
Table 4.23 Number of visits to the medic and the percentage of visits for personal health advice
Medevacs
Offshore medics also detailed the number of medevacs, and the reasons for medevacs, during the
past 12 months, as shown in table 4.24 overleaf. In total, 59 medevacs were reported, with an
average of 4 per installation. 73% of those medevacs were reported to be due to medically related
causes.
Causes of medic visits and medevacs Total number of medevacs Average number of medevacs Medevacs due to injury related causes Medevacs due to medical related causes Medevacs due to cardiac problems
N 59 4 13 43 3
% -
-
22 73 5
Valid
N 15 15 15 15 15
Table 4.24 Number of medevacs and reasons for medevacs
Formal Training for workforce and medics
Table 4.21 indicates the formal training that medics had received in various health areas. 63% had
received training in identifying occupational diseases, 42% had received training for diet and
nutrition and exercise and fitness, but only 25% had received training for health promotion.
Valid Formal training for medics in % N
Health promotion 25 24
Exercise and fitness 42 23 Identifying occupational diseases 63 24 Diet and nutrition 42 24 Stress management 54 24 Other 8 23
Table 4.25 Percentage of medics who have received various forms of training
Table 4.26 (overleaf) indicates the formal training that medics report the workforce has received
in various health areas. Medics report that 88% of the workforce have received training in manual
handling, however only 42% report that the workforce have received training for avoiding skin
problems, and 46% for stress management.
42
![Page 50: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
% N 46 24 42 24
71 24
71 24 5
Valid
Stress management Avoiding skin problems Safe manual handling 88 24 Safe use of hand held power tools Maintaining a healthy back 54 24 Proper use of PPE Other 22
Table 4.26 Percentage of employees who have received various forms of training as reported by the
offshore medic
Medic involvement in health management
Offshore medics were asked to detail the frequency with which they are involved in various
health promotion activities (table 4.27 overleaf). Medics reported being often involved in most
areas of health promotion, however just under half (47%) were involved in the evaluation of
organized health promotion activities.
Never
% % % % % N 0 0 12 13 75 24
0 0 0 25 75 24 0 0 8 9 83 24 0 0 29 21 50 24 0 0 4 0 17 4 17 62 24
5 34 22 25 23
Rarely Sometimes Often V. often Valid
Deciding health promotion activates to be conducted
Implementing/organizing health promotion activities Informing the workforce about health activities Organizing events relating to health promotion Encouraging participation in health activities 29 67 24 Securing resources for extra health activities Evaluating organized health promotion activities 14
Table 4.27 Medic involvement in health management
Awards for health promotion activity.
Table 4.28 indicates the percentage of medics who report that their installation has received an
award for health promotion activities. In total 75% of medics reported that their installation had
received an award.
% N
Valid
Received awards for health promotion activities 75 23
Table 4.28 Percentage of medics who report that their installation has received an award for its health
promotion activities
43
![Page 51: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
4.9 The Medics Index
An average score was calculated to represent the facilities and resources that the medics reported
being available for supporting employee health and well being on their respective installations
(see table 4.29 below). For each scale of the questionnaire a score out of 20 was calculated for all
of the installations that returned medics questionnaires. These were calculated through attributing
scores to the various responses given to items contained within the questionnaire. For example,
most questions were of a ‘yes/no’ nature and thus 2 points were awarded for a ‘yes’ answer, and 1
point for a ‘no’ answer. The final tally of points accumulated in each section was transformed and
measured on a scale of 20. It is notable that in some instances two medics returned questionnaires
from one installation, often reporting conflicting data. In cases where this occurred the question
item was not included in the calculation of an index score for any installation, thus all of the
index scores were calculated using the same criteria. Alternatively, if out of the two medics
reporting data one had worked less than a year, that medic’s data was not included in the final
analysis, and only the senior medic’s data was analysed. This is due to the fact that several
question items asked medics to retrospectively consider the health facilities made available during
the past 12 months. It is noticeable that there is some variance on the scores across the various
scales and installations. The vast majority of installations scored highly on the Screening &
Surveillance scale, the Exercise & Facilities scale and the Smoking Management scale. However,
a wide range of scores was reported for the Stress and Healthy Eating scales.
Screening & Exercise & Smoking Healthy Org Your
Surveillance Facilities Management Stress Eating Support Role Total
Installation Out of 20 Out of 20 Out of 20 Out of 20 Out of 20 Out of 20 Out of 20 Out of 20
A1 17 18 17 0 8 10 17 12
A3 15 18 19 13 12 15 18 16
A5 14 17 17 0 12 13 13 12
B6 16 17 18 17 12 18 19 17
B8 17 19 18 10 12 18 18 16
C9 16 16 17 13 20 15 19 17
C10 15 17 18 7 8 7 18 13
E12 15 18 19 16 16 18 14 17
E13 16 17 17 7 12 18 16 15
E15 17 19 17 13 16 13 14 16
F16 17 20 17 7 16 18 20 16
F18 17 17 18 17 12 15 14 16
F19 17 18 16 7 12 15 16 14
F20 15 20 15 0 12 15 12 13
F23 17 19 16 10 8 15 18 15
G1 17 20 20 20 16 18 20 19
16 18 17 10 13 15 17 15
Table 4.29 Average and overall scores, by installation, on each of the medic questionnaire scales
44
![Page 52: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
5 Results III: Addressing the research questions
5.1 Introduction
The current project builds upon the findings from the first phase of the Health at Work survey,
which suggested that investment by organizations in the health of their workforce generates
unanticipated benefits in unrelated areas such as risk-taking behaviours and worksite
commitment. The present phase of the research project intends to investigate this finding further
by examining the hypothesis that organizational support for the health and well being of offshore
employees helps to build a positive perception of the installation’s health climate, and thus the
organization’s support for the well being of workers. This positive perception of the
organization’s support for the health of employees is hypothesised to impact upon personal health
behaviours, organizational citizenship behaviours and commitment, safety behaviours and
accident involvement. Thus, an analysis will be made of the relationship between offshore
employees’ perceptions of support for health, and their behaviours and feelings with regard to the
installation they work on.
The Health at Work questionnaire was designed to examine the above hypotheses by obtaining
data regarding how offshore employees feel about support for their health and well being as given
by their colleagues and the installation operator. Data was also gathered regarding the personal
health behaviours, organizational citizenship behaviours, organizational commitment, and safety
behaviours of offshore workers. The following section will analyse the relationship between the
offshore employees perceptions of support for their well being and their behaviours whilst at
work. Group differences will also be examined, as will the qualitative data provided by medics
regarding the organization’s support for employee health.
5.2 Data Coding and Analysis
The data was analysed on computer using SPSS Windows (Statistical Package for Social
Sciences), which allows a range of data management and statistical techniques. Statistical
methods used throughout include analysis of variance, factor analysis, Pearson correlations and
multiple and regressions and Discriminant Function Analysis.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is concerned with the testing of hypotheses about mean (or
average) scores (Kinnear & Gray, 2000). In ANOVA, a group mean is taken as an estimate of
performance under particular conditions. However, the performance of an individual within the
group can vary considerably and deviate markedly from the group mean. This is known as within
group variability or error. There may also be a high degree of variability between groups in that
performance of one group may differ considerably from that of another group on the same
variable, task or measurement. The ANOVA F statistic is calculated by dividing an estimate of
the variability between groups by the within groups variability. If there are large differences
between the group means, the numerator of F (and therefore the F value itself) will be inflated
and the null hypothesis is likely to be rejected. The null hypothesis (H0) states equality between
two population means. When H0 can be rejected, it is possible to conclude the presence of a
significant difference between two (or more) population means. In terms of the F value, if there is
45
![Page 53: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
no effect, the numerator and denominator of F should have similar values, resulting in an F value
close to unity.
If the ANOVA F test indicates significance the difference between population means is
confirmed. However, where there are three or more population groups, it may not be clear from a
simple examination of group mean scores, which comparisons are in fact significantly different.
Further analysis is therefore necessary to localise those differences to particular individual group
means. In the current study, Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test was used to
carry out a posteriori comparisons between group means.
A Pearson correlation is used for measuring the relationship between two sets of interval data. In
correlation, the strength of association between variables is expressed as a single number known
as the correlation coefficient. Regression, however, seeks to estimate or predict some
characteristic from knowledge of others by constructing a regression equation (Kinnear & Gray,
2000).
Throughout the analysis, extreme scores and outlying scores on any of the scales were identified
and eliminated from further analysis on the grounds that these scores are essentially
unrepresentative, can misleadingly skew the findings and also violate the assumptions pertaining
to normally distributed data associated with statistical techniques such as analysis of variance.
To address the research question it was first necessary to calculate indices or factors through
exploratory factor analysis. Factor analysis involves analysing the underlying structure of a scale
and examining the latent psychological dimensions contained within each scale.
46
![Page 54: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
5.3 Factor Analysis, Scale Indices and mean scores
As discussed earlier in the report, the offshore Health at Work questionnaire was composed of
several sections each containing a scale with a range of questions. In order to examine the
relationships of responses from those different scales, overall index scores were developed to
characterise an individual’s pattern of responses for each scale. However, before doing this it was
necessary to analyse the underlying structure of each scale, and thus examine whether any latent
dimensions were contained within each scale. To do this an exploratory factor analysis was
conducted on each questionnaire scale (Kinnear & Gray, 2000). A score representing the average
responses by respondents to items on each scale dimension was then developed through
calculating the mean response (on a 5-point Likert scale) of individuals to the questionnaire
items. The pages below provide the results from the factor analysis and discuss any dimensions,
which emerged from the exploratory factor analysis of each questionnaire section.
Section 2: Health on this Installation
Section 2 focussed on the health-related activities that respondents felt were possible to undertake
on their installation. Section 2 was factor analysed using principle component analysis with
varimax rotation. Missing values were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test
the reliability of the dimensions. The factor analysis revealed 4 orthogonal factors, which were
labelled, i) Health advice, ii) Relaxation and recreation, iii) Healthy eating, and iv) Exercise.
These four factors explained a total of 59.7% of the variance on the current scale, with the first
factor explaining 37.8% of the variance, the second factor 8%, the third factor 7%, and the fourth
factor 6%. The 4-factor solution incorporated all 20 items, although some items cross-loaded over
the four factors. The percentage scores, the factor loadings for each item, and the reliability
values for the four factors are presented in table 5.1 on the next page. Only the first two factors
were found to have Cronbach’s Alpha’s above .70, indicating that the items in the other two
factors were not as highly correlated and therefore were less reliable as sub-scales. It is notable
however that although the Cronbach’s Alpha scores were low for the last two factors, the scale
did factor out in a meaningful way.
The first factor contained statements about the health advice that it is possible to receive on the
installation. The second factor contained statements about relaxation and recreation. The third
factor contained statements about healthy foods, and the fourth factor contained statements
regarding exercise. An index score for each dimension was calculated by taking the mean
respondent score (on a 5-point Likert scale) from all of the items in each dimension. An overall
score for the whole scale was also developed.
47
![Page 55: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Health on this Installation Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Health advice
Get advice relating to work related health .68 95 3 2 Get advice relating to improving personal health .75 92 7 1 Get assistance to quit smoking .68 83 14 3 Get advice to manage/lose weight .64 75 20 5 Get advice on drinking/alcohol .67 63 31 6
Cronbach’s Alpha .79
ii) Relaxation and recreation
Get reasonably good sleep .52 69 15 16 Manage stress levels .55 48 41 12 Get advice for stress management .56 39 43 18 Relax when offshift .63 78 12 11 Engage in organised activities .67 52 19 30 Engage in individual activities .76 58 20 22 Engage in health promotion activities .45 61 27 13
Cronbach’s Alpha .83
iii) Healthy eating
Eat bran / fibre .51 88 9 3 Eat a balanced diet .73 82 11 8 Avoid salt .76 56 32 12 Avoid high fat food .85 68 21 11
Cronbach’s Alpha .64
iv) Exercise
Take aerobic exercise .72 82 10 7 Use the gym .71 87 8 5 Drink clean water .71 85 11 4
Cronbach’s Alpha .68
Table 5.1 i) Results of factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or disagreed
with statements from the ‘Health on this Installation’ questionnaire section
48
![Page 56: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the four ‘Health on this Installation’ factors,
and the overall scale, were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.2 below.
No SD SD SD SD SD N
A1 51
A3 36
A5 76
B6 60
B8 26
C9 30
C10 34
E12 26
E13 28
E15 29
F16 34
F18 26
F19 52
F20 41
F21 15
F23 16
F24 27
G1 94
Install Health advice
Relax & recreation
Healthy eating
Exercise Overall
3.71 .48 3.13 .73 3.93 .70 4.12 .52 3.64 .50
3.64 .81 3.20 .81 3.65 .79 3.96 .76 3.56 .66
3.78 .49 3.59 .63 3.78 .59 4.00 .61 3.76 .49
3.85 .58 3.53 .67 3.73 .78 3.93 .78 3.73 .57
3.71 .63 3.32 .71 3.64 .83 4.01 .70 3.62 .60
3.67 .45 2.90 .66 3.67 .60 3.55 .78 3.41 .48
3.77 .44 3.54 .70 3.74 .52 4.12 .50 3.74 .46
4.21 .42 3.56 .51 4.23 .41 4.33 .45 4.03 .39
4.20 .51 3.48 .76 4.33 .50 4.21 .55 4.01 .51
4.18 .48 3.63 .56 4.18 .62 4.33 .49 4.30 .44
3.90 .36 3.30 .61 3.69 .64 4.18 .48 3.71 .39
3.59 .67 3.36 .83 3.33 .77 3.90 .70 3.51 .62
3.85 .59 3.65 .64 3.74 .68 4.24 .61 3.82 .48
3.79 .55 3.34 .69 3.69 .78 4.18 .55 3.69 .50
3.58 .44 3.22 .66 3.87 .44 4.02 .57 3.60 .40
3.89 .39 3.23 .55 3.78 .60 4.08 .38 3.69 .38
3.83 .67 3.43 .72 3.71 .61 4.11 .48 3.73 .55
3.98 .52 3.33 .71 3.54 .78 3.78 .77 3.65 .56
Overall 3.84 0.53 3.37 0.68 3.79 0.65 4.06 0.59 3.73 0.50
Table 5.2 Mean ‘Health on this Installation’ factor scores by installation
Section 3: Support from the Operator
Section 3 asked respondents about the support they feel is provided to them by the organization
largely responsible for the installation. Section 3 was factor analysed using principle component
analysis with varimax rotation. Missing values were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was
used to test the reliability of the dimensions. The factor analysis revealed 2 orthogonal factors that
were labelled, i) Support, and ii) Lack of support. These two factors explained a total of 57.7% of
the variance on the current scale, with the first factor explaining 49.5%, and the second factor
8.2%. The 2-factor solution incorporated all 22 items. The frequency scores, factor loadings for
each item and the reliability values for the two factors are presented in table 5.3. To examine the
internal consistency of the factors a Cronbach’s Alpha test was used. Both factors were found to
have Cronbach’s Alpha scores above .70. The two dimensions revealed by the factor analysis can
be explained in terms of the wording of items contained in each dimension. Items included in the
‘support’ dimensions were worded positively, whereas items included in the ‘lack of support’
dimension were worded negatively. Benn & Dickenson (2004) discuss how the way in which a
question item is worded, in terms of either being worded positively or negatively, can influence
the nature of the construct being measured by the scale. In a study examining the effects of
measuring positively or negatively worded items, Benn & Dickenson (2004) found that negative
wording affects the properties of the items that are being measured.
The first factor contained positive statements about support from the installation operator, for
example that ‘the operator company values healthy workers’. The second factor contained
49
![Page 57: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
negative statements about support from the installation operator, for example ‘the operating
company shows very little concern for me’. Note that before the factor analysis was conducted
the 5-point Likert scores of responses to the negative statements were reversed so to make them
equivalent with the positive statements. An index score for each dimension was calculated by
taking the mean respondent score (on a 5-point Likert scale) from all of the items in each
dimension, an overall score for the whole scale was also developed.
Support from the Operator Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Support
The operating company values my contribution to its well-being
.70 60 31 10
The operating company strongly considers my goals and values
.64 37 43 20
Help is available from the operating company when I have a problem
.66 63 26 11
The operating company cares about my general satisfaction at work
.72 44 38 19
The operating company really cares about my well-being
.70 44 37 19
The operating company is willing to help me when I need a special favour
.55 44 37 19
The operating company cares about my opinions .67 40 43 17 The operating company takes pride in my accomplishments at work
.67 33 48 19
The operating company tries to make my job as interesting as possible
.67 24 37 39
This operating company values healthy workers .72 67 24 9 This operating company is generally concerned about my health and well-being
.78 58 31 12
It is easy to see top management commitment to improving employee health
.78 44 39 17
It is easy to see OIM commitment to improving employee health
.70 50 35 16
Cronbach’s Alpha .95
ii) Lack of support
If the operating company could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary it would do so
.64 29 32 38
The operating company fails to appreciate any extra effort from me
.75 28 28 44
The operating company disregards my best interests when it makes decisions that affect me
.68 25 35 40
Even if I did the best job possible, the operating company would fail to notice
.76 22 28 50
The operating company would ignore any complaint from me
.62 10 28 62
If given the opportunity, the operating company would take advantage of me
.70 28 31 41
The operating company shows very little concern for me
.71 18 27 56
Cronbach’s Alpha .86
Table 5.3 i) results of the factor analysis and ii) percentage of respondents who either agreed or disagreed
with statements from the ‘Support from the Operator’ questionnaire section
50
![Page 58: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the two ‘Operator Support’ factors, and the
overall scale, were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.4 below.
No SD SD SD N
A1
A3 36
A5 B6 59
B8 C9 30
C10 E12 26
E13 E15 29
F16 F18 26
F19 F20 41
F21 F23 16
F24 G1 93
Install Operator support
Operator lack of Support
Overall Scale Scores
3.15 .64 2.96 .74 3.09 .63 51
3.19 .85 3.11 .84 3.17 .76
3.27 .55 3.04 .63 3.20 .53 76
3.27 .71 3.20 .77 3.25 .72
3.17 .58 3.04 .73 3.13 .62 26
3.13 .48 2.92 .59 3.06 .46
2.87 .84 2.61 .85 2.78 .74 34
3.09 .63 2.91 .79 3.03 .66
3.12 .75 3.12 .81 3.13 .64 28
3.43 .48 3.19 .70 3.35 .52
3.49 .65 3.39 .70 3.46 .58 34
3.27 .64 3.16 .74 3.23 .65
3.27 .51 3.14 .57 3.22 .49 52
3.40 .53 3.25 .76 3.35 .60
3.23 .81 3.14 .72 3.20 .76 15
3.28 .74 3.08 .69 3.21 .69
3.52 .57 3.40 .70 3.48 .59 27
3.06 .73 2.86 .79 3.02 .69
Overall 3.23 0.65 3.08 0.73 3.19 0.63
Table 5.4 Mean ‘Operator Support’ factor scores by installation
Section 4: Support from the Supervisor & Workmates
Section 4 asked respondents about the support that they felt they received from their immediate
supervisor and workmates. Section 4 was factor analysed using principle component analysis
with varimax rotation. Missing values were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to
test the reliability of the dimensions. As anticipated, the factor analysis revealed 2 orthogonal
factors, which were labelled, i) Supervisor support, and ii) Workmate support. These two factors
explained a total of 69.9% of the variance on the current scale, with the first factor explaining
49%, and the second factor 20.9%. The 2-factor solution incorporated all 16 items. The frequency
scores, factor loadings for each item and the reliability values for the two factors are presented in
table 5.5 on the next page. Both factors were found to have Cronbach’s Alpha scores above .70.
The first factor contained statements about the support that respondents receive at work from their
supervisors. The second factor contained statements about the support that respondents receive at
work from their colleagues. An index score for each dimension was calculated by taking the mean
respondent score (on a 5-point Likert scale) from all of the items in each dimension, an overall
score for the whole scale was also developed.
51
![Page 59: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Support from the Supervisor & Workmates Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Supervisor support
My supervisor is supportive when problems come up at work.
.85 83 11 6
My supervisor is willing to listen to my work-related problems
.86 85 10 6
My supervisor shows concern about the welfare of those under him/her
.84 74 17 9
My supervisor is someone who I can truly trust .84 56 33 11 My supervisor gives clear and helpful feedback about my performance
.83 67 21 12
My supervisor makes it clear what is expected of me .74 79 13 8 My supervisor is very good about giving advice when problems arise at work
.85 71 21 9
My supervisor is very helpful to me in getting my job done
.87 70 18 11
Cronbach’s Alpha .95
ii) Workmate support
My workmates show concern about the welfare of other people
.76 82 13 5
My workmates are people who I can truly trust .80 57 33 10 My workmates care about me as a person .82 59 34 8 My workmates go out of their way to praise good work .80 50 33 17 My workmates give clear and helpful feedback .81 50 34 16 My workmates are very good about giving advice when problems arise
.80 71 22 8
My workmates do a good job of teaching useful skills .81 69 22 9 My workmates are very helpful to me in getting my job done
.80 78 15 7
Cronbach’s Alpha .93
Table 5.5 i) Results of the factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or disagreed
with statements from the ‘Support from the Supervisor & Workmates’ questionnaire section
52
![Page 60: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the ‘Supervisor and Workmate Support’
factors were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.6 below.
No SD SD N
A1 51
A3 37
A5 77
B6 60
B8 26
C9 30
C10 34
E12 26
E13 28
E15 29
F16 34
F18 26
F19 52
F20 41
F21 15
F23 16
F24 27
G1 94
Install Supervisor support
Workmate support
3.63 .79 3.56 .51
3.98 .74 3.81 .71
3.83 .61 3.67 .59
3.79 .67 3.66 .75
3.62 .65 3.53 .68
3.74 .56 3.52 .60
3.10 .94 3.50 .77
3.50 .75 3.47 .93
3.66 .74 3.63 .67
3.96 .63 3.57 .58
3.65 .74 3.50 .58
3.56 .67 3.57 .59
3.74 .70 3.22 .69
3.76 .65 3.60 .62
3.73 .70 3.27 .91
3.63 .80 3.91 .40
3.70 .75 3.44 .66
3.54 .90 3.43 .69
Overall 3.67 0.72 3.55 0.66
Table 5.6 Mean ‘Supervisor and Workmate Support’ factor scores by installation
Section 5: Your Health
This section asked respondents about their health, fitness and dietary habits. Although section 5
asked for a range of information about an individual’s health, only certain measures were used to
generate an index of employee health. The Health Behaviour Index (HBI) was calculated
according to responses across a number of measures relating to personal health characteristics.
For each measure included in the index a positive (taking regular exercise) or negative (being a
smoker) valenced response was identified and coded accordingly (i.e. a score of 1 was assigned to
the most negative response). An individual’s scores on each measure were then tallied to generate
an overall score on the health behaviour index. Responses were calibrated such that an overall
low score on the HBI suggested an overall negative approach to personal health. Thus, an
individual returning a low score on this index is more likely to engage in negative health
behaviours or have poor health management habits. Conversely, individuals taking an interest in
improving their health or attempting to stay healthy can achieve a higher score on this index. Five
items were included in the Health Behaviour Index, including whether respondents had ever
asked the medic about improving their health, the respondents’ body mass index, the degree to
which respondents eat healthy foods, whether they smoke and whether they exercise frequently.
In total the overall HBI scores were out of 12.
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the ‘Your Health’ section as calculated for
each installation, are shown in table 5.7 overleaf.
53
![Page 61: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
No SD N
A1 51
A3 37
A5 77
B6 60
B8 26
C9 30
C10 34
E12 26
E13 28
E15 29
F16 34
F18 26
F19 52
F20 41
F21 15
F23 16
F24 27
G1 94
Install Your Health
7.96 1.98
7.81 2.10
7.70 1.96
8.25 1.94
8.75 1.82
7.69 1.44
7.83 2.03
9.01 1.65
8.37 2.52
8.27 1.88
7.21 2.00
8.43 1.92
8.67 1.90
8.14 2.17
8.26 1.58
7.95 1.94
7.54 1.97
7.99 2.01
Overall 8.10 1.93
Table 5.7 Mean ‘Your Health’ scores by installation
Section 6: Citizenship Behaviours
This section asked respondents about the citizenship behaviours they undertake whilst on the
installation. Section 6 was factor analysed using principle component analysis with varimax
rotation. Missing values were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the
reliability of the dimensions. The factor analysis revealed 2 orthogonal factors, which were
labelled, i) Making suggestions, and ii) Speaking up. These two factors explained a total of 62.4%
of the variance on the current scale, with the first factor explaining 51%, and the second factor
11.3%. The 2-factor solution incorporated all 9 items. The frequency scores, factor loadings for
each item and the reliability values for the two factors are presented in table 5.8 overleaf. To
examine the internal consistency of the factors a Cronbach’s Alpha test was used. The first factor
was found to have a Cronbach’s Alpha score above .70, however the second factor had a score of
0.67. This could be due to the fact that there were only 2 items in this scale.
The first factor contained statements about making suggestions and doing things that could
benefit the installation in some way. The second factor contained statements about speaking up
even when most other people think differently. An index score for each dimension was calculated
by taking the mean respondent score (on a 5-point Likert scale) from all of the items in each
dimension. An overall score for the whole scale was also developed.
54
![Page 62: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Citizenship Behaviours Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Making suggestions
I make suggestions to improve work procedures .62 47 40 13 I make suggestions to improve the organisation .44 71 25 4 I try to draw management attention to potentially unsafe or hazardous activities
.49 65 26 9
I try to make innovative suggestions to improve the installation
.81 54 33 13
I inform management of potentially unproductive policies and practices
.84 83 16 2
I am willing to speak up when policy or rules do not contribute to the achievement of the installation's .78 58 31 10 goals I suggest revisions to work practices to achieve organisational objectives
.85 51 32 17
Cronbach’s Alpha .83
ii) Speaking up
I express opinions honestly even when others think differently
.78 64 26 11
I do not keep doubts about a work issue to myself -even when everyone else disagrees
.87 51 33 16
Cronbach’s Alpha .67
Table 5.8 i) Results of the factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or disagreed
with statements from the ‘Citizenship Behaviours’ section
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the two ‘Citizenship Behaviours’ factors, and
the overall scale, were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.9 below.
No SD
up SD SD N
A1
A3 37
A5 B6 60
B8 C9 30
C10 E12 26
E13 E15 29
F16 F18 26
F19 F20 41
F21 F23 16
F24 G1 94
Install Making suggestions
Speaking Citizenship Behaviours overall
3.58 .83 3.93 .77 3.67 .75 51
3.99 .84 3.77 .72 3.65 .77
3.54 .63 3.68 .81 3.59 .61 77
3.46 .68 3.77 .67 3.55 .59
3.57 .61 3.71 .78 3.62 .58 26
3.60 .63 3.78 .58 3.65 .53
3.53 .87 4.01 .50 3.66 .73 34
3.51 .73 3.67 .69 3.57 .62
3.65 .91 3.96 .80 3.75 .82 28
3.59 .75 3.69 .93 3.61 .75
3.72 .66 3.74 .64 3.74 .61 33
3.83 .70 3.94 .61 3.87 .63
3.62 .68 3.86 .70 3.69 .62 52
3.78 .66 3.94 .69 3.85 .56
3.15 .86 3.26 .82 3.22 .74 15
3.79 .49 3.88 .56 3.83 .43
3.85 .72 3.87 .67 3.87 .63 27
3.37 .77 3.58 .82 3.43 .70
Overall 3.62 0.72 3.78 0.71 3.66 0.65
Table 5.9 Mean ‘Citizenship Behaviours’ factor scores by installation
55
![Page 63: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Section 7: Satisfaction with Occupational Health Management
Section 7 measured the level of satisfaction respondents have with the occupational health
management on their installation. Section 7 was factor analysed using principle component
analysis with varimax rotation. Missing values were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was
used to test the reliability of the dimensions. The factor analysis revealed 3 orthogonal factors
which were labelled, i) Safety training, ii) Safety equipment and iii) Occupational disease
surveillance. These three factors explained a total of 74.2% of the variance, with the first factor
explaining 55.2%, the second factor 10.7%, and the third factor 8.4%. The 3-factor solution
incorporated all 13 items. The frequency scores, factor loadings for each item and the reliability
values for the three factors are presented in table 5.10. To examine the internal consistency of the
factors a Cronbach’s Alpha test was used and all factors had scores above .70.
The first factor contained statements about training for use of equipment and avoiding
occupational diseases, the second factor contained statements about provision of equipment, and
the third factor contained statements about occupational disease surveillance. An index score for
each dimension was calculated by taking the mean respondent score (on a 5-point Likert scale)
from all of the items on each dimension. An overall score for the whole scale was also developed.
Occupational Health Management Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Training
Rated satisfaction: training manual handling .75 74 20 6 Rated satisfaction: training for PPE use .74 80 17 3 Rated satisfaction: training for COSHH .80 68 23 8 Rated satisfaction: safe use of tools .84 72 22 6 Rated satisfaction: training to avoid hearing damage .64 71 22 8
Cronbach’s Alpha .90
ii) Equipment
Rated satisfaction: respiratory PPE .71 86 12 2 Rated satisfaction: eye protection .88 93 6 2 Rated satisfaction: chemical gloves .83 91 7 3 Rated satisfaction: ear defenders .87 92 5 3
Cronbach’s Alpha .90
iii) Disease surveillance
Rated satisfaction: respiratory health surveillance .72 53 35 12 Rated satisfaction: vibration related diseases .82 64 25 11 Rated satisfaction: noise related hearing loss .71 69 19 12 Rated satisfaction: training to avoid vibration related diseases
.66 62 26 11
Cronbach’s Alpha .82
Table 5.10 i) Results of the factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or
disagreed with statements from the ‘Satisfaction with Occupational Health Management’ questionnaire
section
56
![Page 64: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the three ‘Occupational Health Management’
factors, and the overall scale, were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.11 below.
No SD SD SD SD N
A1
A3 36
A5 B6 59
B8 C9 30
C10 E12 26
E13 E15 29
F16 F18 26
F19 F20 41
F21 F23 16
F24 G1 93
Install Training Equipment
Disease surveillance
Management overall
3.84 .68 4.29 .55 3.51 .68 3.94 .53 50
3.89 .68 4.18 .59 3.63 .90 3.91 .61
3.96 .72 4.16 .72 3.61 .80 3.94 .67 75
3.63 .89 4.32 .82 3.58 .86 3.85 .76
3.63 .88 4.35 .44 3.45 .81 3.83 .57 26
3.53 .69 4.03 .61 3.34 .75 3.65 .58
3.90 .63 4.34 .51 3.72 .70 4.00 .52 34
3.83 .63 4.26 .48 3.71 .55 3.94 .51
4.09 .70 4.19 .71 3.77 .67 4.04 .63 27
3.96 .60 4.13 .61 3.53 .73 3.92 .53
3.78 .68 4.22 .61 3.68 .71 3.88 .58 34
3.61 .63 4.29 .63 3.60 .79 3.85 .60
3.72 .81 4.33 .55 3.61 .89 3.93 .63 52
3.88 .52 4.38 .50 3.63 .73 3.98 .44
3.47 .55 4.11 .56 3.62 .74 3.69 .52 15
4.18 .46 4.47 .49 3.93 .49 4.21 .36
3.98 .56 4.24 .68 3.76 .68 3.99 .52 25
4.01 .60 4.20 .66 3.70 .80 4.00 .60
Overall 3.83 0.66 4.25 0.60 3.63 0.74 3.92 0.56
Table 5.11 Mean ‘Occupational Health Management’ factor scores by installation
Section 8: Support for Health
Section 8 regards the role of supervisors and workmates in helping colleagues to improve and
maintain their health. Section 8 was factor analysed using principle component analysis with
varimax rotation. Missing values were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test
the reliability of the dimensions. As anticipated, the factor analysis revealed 2 orthogonal factors,
which were labelled, i) Supervisor support for health, and ii) Workmate support for health. These
two factors explained a total of 62.2% of the variance, with the first factor explaining 45.9% and
the second factor 16.4%. The 2-factor solution incorporated all 14 items. The frequency scores,
factor loadings for each item and the reliability values for the three factors are presented in table
5.12 overleaf. To examine the internal consistency of the factors a Cronbach’s Alpha test was
used. Both factors were found to have Cronbach’s Alpha scores above .70.
The first factor contained statements about the support for health given by supervisors, and the
second factor contained statements about the support for health given by workmates. An index
score for each dimension was calculated by taking the mean respondent score (on a 5-point Likert
scale) from all of the items in each dimension, an overall score for the whole scale was also
developed.
57
![Page 65: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Support for Health Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Supervisor support for health
My supervisor ensures that my general health is not endangered by my day to day work
.80 75 16 10
My supervisor aims as far as practicable to remove threats to my general health from the work .81 82 12 7 environment My supervisor is sympathetic to health problems .79 62 29 10 I can discuss health problems with my supervisor .69 58 26 16 Rules relating to health are always enforced by my supervisor
.76 61 57 12
I feel I can openly talk about safety issues for a task with supervisors and get help and support
.67 10 28 62
Cronbach’s Alpha .91
ii) Workmate support for health
My workmates would be supportive of me if I started exercising
.73 62 28 10
My workmates share health information with me .71 47 30 23 My workmates would help people who were trying to quit smoking
.79 57 31 13
My workmates are interested in hearing about new health information/advice
.72 46 44 11
My workmates would support me if I was trying to adopt good health habits (e.g. eating healthily, .87 58 31 11 exercising etc) My workmates would encourage me if I was trying to lose weight
.85 58 31 11
My workmates would not ridicule anyone here for trying to look after or improve their health
.71 56 31 13
I can always get help and support from workmates when I ask
.74 66 19 15
Cronbach’s Alpha .87
Table 5.12 i) Results of the factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or
disagreed with statements from the ‘Support for Health’ questionnaire section
58
![Page 66: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the two ‘Support for health’ factors, and the
overall scale, were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.13 below.
No SD SD N
A1 51
A3 37
A5 77
B6 60
B8 26
C9 30
C10 34
E12 26
E13 28
E15 29
F16 33
F18 26
F19 51
F20 41
F21 15
F23 16
F24 27
G1 94
Install Supervisors support for health
Workmates support for health
3.65 .68 3.56 .51
3.82 .69 3.82 .71
3.71 .59 3.67 .59
3.84 .63 3.66 .75
3.56 .59 3.53 .67
3.57 .59 3.52 .60
3.35 .79 3.50 .77
3.54 .72 3.47 .93
3.74 .61 3.63 .67
3.88 .63 3.57 .58
3.71 .61 3.50 .68
3.67 .57 3.57 .59
3.88 .55 3.59 .63
3.78 .68 3.60 .62
3.71 .75 3.27 .91
3.98 .52 3.91 .40
3.83 .56 3.44 .66
3.57 .66 3.43 .69
Overall 3.71 0.63 3.57 0.66 38.94
Table 5.13 Mean ‘Support for health’ factor scores by installation
Section 9: Safety Behaviour
Section 9 consisted of items concerning the safety behaviours of individual employees. Section 9
was factor analysed using principle component analysis with varimax rotation. Missing values
were excluded listwise and Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the reliability of the dimensions.
The factor analysis revealed 2 orthogonal factors, which were labelled, i) Making interventions,
and ii) Reporting dangers. These two factors explained a total of 65% of the variance, with the
first factor explaining 53.3% and the second factor 11.7%. The 2-factor solution incorporated all
9 items. The frequency scores, factor loadings for each item and the reliability values for the two
factors are presented in table 5.14 overleaf. To examine the internal consistency of the factors a
Cronbach’s Alpha test was used. Both factors had Cronbach’s Alpha scores above .70.
The first factor contained statements about making interventions, such as confronting others
about unsafe behaviours, to ensure safety on the installation. The second factor contained
statements about reporting safety incidents and issues. An index score for each dimension was
calculated by taking the mean respondent score (on a 5-point Likert scale) from all of the items in
each dimension. An overall score for the whole scale was also developed.
59
![Page 67: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Safety Behaviour Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Making interventions
If I know a workmate is going to do a hazardous job, I remind him/her of the hazards
.75 95 3 2
I confront other workmates about their unsafe acts .78 96 3 1 I would remind or encourage another employee to maintain good housekeeping
.82 97 2 1
When I see a potential safety hazard, I correct it myself if possible
.73 98 2 0
I make suggestions to management for improving safety of the work environment
.57 88 10 2
Cronbach’s Alpha .84
ii) Reporting dangers
I put pressure on management for improving safety of the workplace
.45 55 31 14
I report near misses .86 89 7 5 I report minor accidents .88 81 10 9 I report hazardous working conditions .75 96 3 1
Cronbach’s Alpha .81
Table 5.14 i) Results of the factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or
disagreed with statements from the ‘Safety Behaviour’ questionnaire section
The overall mean score and standard deviations for the two ‘Safety Behaviour’ factors, and the
overall scale, were calculated for each installation, as shown in table 5.15 below.
No SD SD SD N
A1 51
A3 37
A5 76
B6 60
B8 26
C9 30
C10 34
E12 26
E13 28
E15 29
F16 33
F18 26
F19 52
F20 41
F21 15
F23 16
F24 27
G1 93
Install Making interventions
Reporting dangers
Safety Behaviour overall
4.29 .49 3.96 .67 4.14 .53
4.46 .56 4.02 .81 4.26 .61
4.22 .55 3.80 .70 4.03 .56
4.23 .41 4.04 .58 4.14 .45
4.20 .42 4.07 .54 4.14 .45
4.21 .42 3.99 .58 4.11 .47
4.31 .45 4.04 .65 4.18 .51
4.09 .48 4.06 .45 4.08 .37
4.31 .42 4.04 .42 4.19 .44
4.26 .51 4.01 .64 4.15 .54
4.35 .42 4.13 .43 4.25 .39
4.37 .44 4.14 .58 4.27 .45
4.28 .49 4.07 .62 4.19 .50
4.45 .43 4.32 .53 4.39 .44
4.28 .44 3.82 .70 4.07 .49
4.43 .51 4.16 .84 4.31 .50
4.46 .47 4.25 .64 4.37 .51
4.23 .47 3.77 .67 4.03 .51
Overall 4.30 0.47 4.04 0.61 4.18 0.48
Table 5.15 Mean ‘Safety Behaviours’ factor scores by installation
60
![Page 68: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Section 10: You and this Installation
Section 10 referred to the commitment that respondents felt with regard to the installation they
worked on. Section 10 was factor analysed using principle component analysis with varimax
rotation, with all 10 items loading onto one factor, which was termed ‘Organizational
Commitment’. The Cronbach’s Alpha’s score was .93, showing excellent internal validity. The
frequency scores, factor loadings for each item and the reliability values for the single factors are
presented in table 5.16. An index score for the single dimension was calculated by taking the
mean respondent score from all of the items.
You and this Installation Factor % % % Loading Agree Neither Disagree
i) Organizational commitment
I feel a strong sense of belonging to this installation .87 61 22 18 I feel like part of this installation .89 60 22 18 I am willing to put myself out to help this installation .81 76 16 9 In my work, I like to feel that I am making some effort not just for myself but for this installation as well
.77 84 11 5
I feel like 'part of the family' on this installation .88 57 24 20 I am quite proud to tell people I work on this installation .86 60 24 17 To know that I had made a contribution to the good of this installation would please me
.74 85 10 5
Cronbach’s Alpha .93
Table 5.16 i) Results of the factor analysis and ii) Percentage of respondents who either agreed or
disagreed with statements from the ‘You and this Installation’ questionnaire section
The overall mean score and standard deviations for ‘organizational commitment’ were calculated
for each installation, as shown in table 5.17 below.
No SD N
A1 51
A3 37
A5 76
B6 60
B8 26
C9 30
C10 34
E12 26
E13 28
E15 29
F16 33
F18 26
F19 52
F20 41
F21 14
F23 16
F24 27
G1 93
Install Organizational commitment
3.75 .79
3.70 .84
3.83 .61
3.50 .80
3.66 .70
3.54 .70
3.60 .93
3.45 .85
3.70 .90
3.92 .70
3.83 .84
3.75 .56
3.81 .64
3.79 .73
3.24 .83
3.88 .92
3.91 .81
3.60 .79
Overall 3.69 0.77 38.8
Table 5.17 Mean ‘Organizational Commitment’ scores by installation
61
![Page 69: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
5.4 Analysis of Group Differences
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine for differences between groups
of respondents with respect to their responses on the scales used in the ‘Health at Work’ survey.
The group differences examined were employer (operator versus contractor), seniority level
(supervisor versus non-supervisor), amount of offshore experience (number of years worked on
the installation) and job role.
Employer
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to test for differences between respondents
employed either by the operating company or a contracting company. The results indicated that
staff employed by contracting companies (m=3.48) agreed more strongly than operator
employees (m=3.29) that it was possible to relax and take part in healthy recreational activities
(F(1,673)=12.00, p<.01). Staff employed by contracting companies also agreed more strongly
(m=3.91 vs. 3.55) that it was possible to eat healthy foods (F(1, 673)= 42.15, p<.001). However,
respondents employed by the operating company (m=3.70) agreed more strongly than those
employed by contracting companies (m=3.49) that they showed organizational citizenship
behaviours such as making suggestions to help the organizational better reach its goals (F
(1,673)= 11.717, p<.001). Operating company employees (m=3.8 vs. m=3.63) also agreed more
strongly with statements describing their organizational commitment (F (1,670)= 8.44, p<.05).
Supervisors
Several differences were found between supervisors and non-supervisors perceptions of the
health climate and their reported work behaviours. Supervisors were more likely (m=3.32) than
non-supervisors (m=3.10) to feel that the operating company provided them with support
(F(1,683)= 18.588, p<.001), and that supervisors provide employees (m=3.8 vs. m=3.53) with
support for their health and well-being (F(1,681)= 6.725, p<.01). Supervisors also agreed more
strongly (m=3.89) than non-supervisors (m=3.40) to showing organizational citizenship
behaviours such as making suggestions (F(1,685)= 72.883, p<.001). Furthermore, supervisors
(m=3.90) were more likely than non-supervisors (m=3.71) to agree more strongly that they
expressed their opinions (F(1,685)= 10.423. p<.001). With regard to safety behaviours,
supervisors (m=4.46) agreed more strongly than non-supervisors (m=4.19) that they take safety
actions (F(1,683)= 51.95, p<.001), and that they (m=4.19 vs. m=3.9) report safety issues
(F(1,683)= 33.75. p<.001). Finally, supervisors (m=3.91 vs. 3.57) also agreed more strongly with
statements describing their organizational commitment (F (1,682)= 30.99, p<.001).
Age
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to test for differences between respondents
within different age groups. The results indicated that respondents within different age groups
showed varying responses to some of the dimensions measured by the health at work
questionnaire (table 5.19 overleaf). It is noticeable that the most common differences were for the
work behaviours reported by 51-65 year olds and 20-30 year olds, with 51-65 years reporting on
average more positive responses than 20-30 year olds.
62
![Page 70: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Dimensions of health climate and work behaviours
Comparisons between age groups
DF F value P value
Making suggestions 51-65 (m=3.71) – 20-30 (m=3.35) 3, 696 5.854 <.001
Speaking up 51-65 (m=3.88) – 20-30 (m=3.56) 3, 697 4.422 <.05 41-50 (m=3.82) – 20-30 (m=3.56) <.05
Taking safety action 51-65 (m=4.34) – 20-30 (m=4.15) 3, 695 3.413 <.05 41-50 (m=4.32) – 20-30 (m=4.15) <.05
Reporting dangers 51-65 (m=4.17) – 20-30 (m=3.77) 3, 695 9.472 <.001 41-50 (m=4.04) – 20-30 (m=3.77) <.05
Organizational Commitment 51-65 (m=3.83) – 31-40 (m=3.59) 3, 694 3.249 <.01
Table 5.19 Differences between age groups on dimensions of health climate and work behaviours
63
![Page 71: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Occupation
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was also performed to test for differences between different
occupational groups. The results indicated differences in perceptions of the health climate,
support and differences in work behaviours (Table 5.20). In particular, employees whose job type
was reported as being Administration/Management were found to view the health climate more
positively than those in other job types. Furthermore, respondents who reported their job type as
Administration/Management also responded more positively to scales measuring levels of
occupation citizenship behaviours, safety behaviours and organizational commitment.
Dimensions of health climate and work behaviours
Comparisons between occupational groups DF F value P value
Health Advice Admin/Management (m=4.04) – Maintenance (m=3.71) 8, 668 3.583 <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.04) – Drilling (m=3.78) <.05
Eating Habits Catering (m=3.53) – Production (m=3.26) 8, 668 5.550 <.001 Catering (m=3.53) – Maintenance (m=3.32) <.001 Catering (m=3.53) – Drilling (m=3.35) <.001
Aerobic Exercise Admin/Management (m=4.27) – Deck crew (m=3.82) 8, 668 3.376 <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.27) – Maintenance (m=3.94) <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.27) – Drilling (m=3.95) <.01
Support from the operator Admin/Management (m=3.50) – Production (m=3.09) 8, 666 4.799 <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.50) – Drilling (m=3.13) <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.50) – Maintenance (m=3.08) <.01
Lack of support from operator Admin/Management (m=3.39) – Production (m=2.98) 8, 666 4.932 <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.39) – Maintenance (m=2.92) <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.39) – Deck Crew (m=2.83) <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.39) – Catering (m=2.92) <.01
Making suggestions Admin/Management (m=3.91) – Construction (m=3.30) 8, 669 5.205 <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.91) – Maintenance (m=3.44) <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.91) – Deck Crew (m=3.44) <.01 Admin/Management (m=3.91) – Catering (m=3.47) <.01
Supervisor support for health Admin/Management (m=3.94) – Production (m=3.53) 8, 667 4.358 <.001 Admin/Management (m=3.94) – Maintenance (m=3.58) <.001
Taking safety action Admin/Management (m=4.48) – Maintenance (m=4.12) 8, 669 3.819 <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.48) – Production (m=4.12) <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.41) – Production (m=4.06) <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.48) – Drilling (m=4.24) <.05
Reporting dangers Admin/Management (m=4.41) – Maintenance (m=3.85) 8, 669 9.457 <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.41) – Drilling (m=3.76) <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.41) – Deck Crew (m=3.82) <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Production (m=3.55) <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.41) – Construction (m=3.99) <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.41) – Catering (m=4.08) <.05
Organizational Commitment Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Maintenance (m=3.52) 8, 668 6.750 <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Drilling (m=3.60) <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Construction (m=3.60) <.001 Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Deck Crew (m=3.68) <.01 Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Catering (m=3.79) <.05 Admin/Management (m=4.17) – Operations (m=3.71) <.05
Table 5.20 Differences between occupational groups on dimensions of health climate and work behaviours
64
![Page 72: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
5.5 Correlational Analysis
The relationships between the responses of respondents for the various dimensions of work
behaviour and health at work and support scales were examined through a series of Pearson
correlations. The vast majority of the correlation coefficients were found to be significant at
either the 0.01 or 0.05 level, although some values were not particularly high. All of the
correlations are displayed in table 5.18 in a correlation matrix. It should be noted that
correlational analysis for the occupational health management section used the overall scale
rather than the individual factors specified earlier, i.e. safety training, safety equipment, disease
surveillance. This was due to overall scale having a more consistent relationship with the other
dimensions than the individual factors.
65
![Page 73: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
H ealth advice
Rela xation and recrea tion
H ealthy ea ting
E x er ci se
S u p p o rt f ro m th e o p era to r
L a ck o f su p p o rt f ro m th e o p era to r
Superv i sor support -genera l
Wo rk mate su p p ort -
O ccu pational H ealth Ma nagem ent
Superv i sor support fo r hea lth
Wo rk mate su p p ort fo r hea lth
O rg a n iza t io n a l co m m i tm en t
Report in g danger s
T a k in g sa fe ty a c tio n
Rel
ax
ati
on
an
d r
ecre
ati
on
- -
Rep
ort
ing
da
ng
ers
Ta
kin
g s
afe
ty a
cti
on
Sp
eak
ing
up
-
.54
7*
*
-
.64
4*
*
-
-
.33
9
-
-
.38
2*
*
-
.26
6*
*
-
-
.43
0*
*
-
-
.44
4*
.
-
.17
4*
*
.31
7*
*
.34
5*
*
.17
3*
*
-
.10
6*
*
.11
7*
*
.13
6*
*
-
.10
9*
*
.13
2*
*
.46
2*
*
-
.07
6*
.1
27
**
-
Tab
le 5
.18
Co
rrela
tio
ns
betw
een
th
e h
ealt
h c
lim
ate
dim
ensi
on
s
**
.Co
rrela
tio
n i
s si
gn
ific
ant
at
the 0
.01
lev
el.
*. C
orr
ela
tio
n i
s si
gn
ific
ant
at
the 0
.05
lev
el
66
![Page 74: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Correlations between organizational commitment and support dimensions
Table 5.18 shows significant correlations between all of the support dimensions and
organizational commitment, however some correlation coefficient values were considerably
larger than others. The Pearson correlations with the largest values were for the relationships
between organizational commitment and support from the operator (r=.59; p<.001; lack of
support from the operator (r=.44; p<.001); supervisor support (r=.45, p<0.001) and supervisor
support for health (r=.48, p<.001). Correlation coefficient values for organizational commitment
and support from workmates (r=.38, p<.001) and workmate support for health (r=.37, p<.001)
were also quite large. Support from workmates and workmate support for health are so highly
correlated (r=.99), they are effectively the same construct. The coefficient values for
organizational commitment and occupational health management overall (r=.32, p<.001), health
advice (r=.31, p<.001), and relaxation and recreation (r=.35, p<.001), were also relatively high.
Correlations between safety behaviours and support dimensions
Significant correlations were found between safety behaviours and some of the support
dimensions (see table 5.18). The coefficients with the largest values were for the relationships
between reporting dangers and support from the operator (r=.32; p<.001) and lack of support
from the operator (r=.26; p<.001), reporting danger and supervisor support for health (r=.35,
p<.001), and reporting danger and health advice (r=.24, p<.001). A reasonably sized correlation
coefficient was also found between taking safety action and supervisor support for health (r=.26,
p<.001). However, the analysis between taking safety action and the various health climate
dimensions revealed, in general, a weaker pattern of correlations than those described in the
section above.
Correlations between making suggestions and support dimensions
Significant correlations were found between making suggestions and some of the health climate
dimensions (see table 5.18). The Pearson correlations with the largest values were for the
relationships between making suggestions and support from the operator (r=.21; p<.001) and
making suggestions and supervisor support for health (r=.22, p<.001).
Correlations between organizational commitment, safety behaviours and organizational
citizenship behaviours
When examining the relationships between organizational commitment, safety behaviours and
organizational citizenship behaviours, several significant correlations emerged (see table 5.18).
Large correlation coefficients were found for the relationships between organizational
commitment and making suggestions (r=.33; p<.001); taking safety actions (r=.38; p<.001) and
reporting danger (r=.40, p<.001). Large correlation coefficients were also found for the
relationship between making suggestions and taking safety action (r=.46; p<.001) and making
suggestions and reporting dangers (r=.50; p<.001). In conclusion, the coefficients tend to show a
relationship between organizational commitment and the dimensions of organizational citizenship
behaviours and safety behaviours. Furthermore, the organizational citizenship behaviour of
making suggestions appears to have a significant relationship with the dimensions of safety
behaviour, i.e. taking safety actions and reporting dangers.
67
![Page 75: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Correlations between support, health activities and occupational health management.
When examining the relationship between the support that respondents believe they receive from
the operating company and their work colleagues, and the health activities that individuals feel
are possible to undertake on the installation, several significant correlations emerged (see table
5.18). In particular, large coefficients were found between health advice and support from the
operator (r=.41; p<.001) and lack of support from the operator (r=.23; p<.001), and health advice
and support from supervisors (r=.40; p<.001). Significant correlations were also found between
the relaxation and recreation dimension and support from the operator (r=.50; p<.001); lack of
support from the operator (r=.34; p<.001), support from supervisors (r=.38; p<.001), and support
for health from supervisors (r=.47; p<.001). Significant correlation coefficients were also found
for occupational health management and the support from the operator (r=.39; p<.001); lack of
support from the operator (r=.34; p<.001), and support for health from supervisors (r=.39;
p<.001). The correlations tend to show that there is a significant relationship between the health
activities on offer on the installations and the perceptions of support given by supervisors and the
operating company. Furthermore, occupational health management also appears to have a
significant relationship with the support from supervisors and the operating company.
5.6 Predicting offshore workers’ organisational commitment, citizenship behaviour, safety
behaviour and personal health behaviour.
In accordance with the hypotheses outlined in the introduction, stepwise linear regression analysis
was used to test for relationships between general and health related support provided by the
organisation, supervisors and workmates and outcomes such as ‘organizational commitment’,
‘citizenship behaviours’, ‘safety behaviours’ and ‘personal health behaviour’.
In stepwise regression, independent variables are added or removed from the equation one at a
time as a function of statistical considerations (Kinnear & Gray, 2000). The predictor variables
used in the stepwise procedures outlined below were as follows (see Table 5.19): operator
support, supervisor support, workmates support, health support from supervisor, health support
from workmates, health climate and satisfaction with health and safety management. The
outcome variables (see Table 5.19) were organisational commitment, citizenship behaviour,
safety behaviour and personal health behaviour, respectively.
68
![Page 76: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
2
Scale Section from Questionnaire
Predictor variables
Operator Support Total score of all items from Section 3
Supervisor Support - general Score of items measuring Supervisor support
from Section 4
Workmate Support - general Score of items measuring Workmate support
from Section 4
Health support from supervisor Score of Supervisor health support items
from Section 5
Health support from workmates Score of Workmate health support items from
Section 5
Health activities Total score from Section 2
Satisfaction with occupational health Total score from Section 7
management
Outcome variables
Organisational commitment Total score from Section 10
Citizenship behaviour Total score from Section 6
Safety behaviour Total score from Section 9
Health behaviour Combined score from Q 1,4,5,9,10 and 14 in
Section 5
Table 5.19. Scales used for stepwise linear regression
Table 5.20 indicates the three variables that predict organizational commitment, when all other
predictors that are not making a significant contribution to the model are removed. The model has
a R value equivalent to 40%, which is high. Operator support appears to be contributing most to
the model where high operator support leads to greater levels of commitment. Next, health
support from the supervisor appears to be almost as important as health support from workmates
in contributing to the model, with high levels of support from both leading to higher levels of
commitment. It should be noted that supervisor support–general and workmates support–general,
show high levels of collinearity with the health support scales hence their removal from the
equation.
Model Predictor variables Standard Beta t
Remaining predictors Operator support .42 12.05 ***
Health support from
workmates .18 5.61 ***
F(3,682)=156.24, p<.001, R2=0.40
Health support from
supervisor .19 5.32 ***
Table 5.20. Stepwise linear regression predicting organisational commitment
Table 5.21 overleaf indicates the two variables that predict citizenship behaviours, when all other
predictors that are not making a significant contribution to the model are removed. The model 2
has a R value equivalent to 6%, which although significant is not very high. Health support from
the supervisor appears to contribute most to the model followed by operator support. Again high
levels of both types of support lead to higher levels of citizenship behaviour.
69
![Page 77: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Model Predictor variables Standard Beta t ***
Remaining predictors Health support from .18 4.22
supervisor **
Operator support .11 2.66
F(2,682)=25.27, p<.001, R2=0.06
Table 5.21. Stepwise linear regression predicting citizenship behaviours
Table 5.22 indicates the three variables that predict safety behaviour, when all other predictors 2
that are not making a significant contribution to the model are removed. The model has a R value
equivalent to 14%, which although significant is not very high. Health support from the
supervisor again appears to contribute most to the model followed by operator support. Health
support from workmates also makes a small but significant contribution. In all cases high levels
of support appear to predict improved safety behaviour, however, the contribution of supervisor
support in a general sense seems to makes a negative contribution with more support from the
supervisor leading to less safety behaviour. This could be because the scale is perceived to
measure support for getting the work done rather than safety, per se, (however note comments
about collinearity outlined above).
Model Predictor variables Standard Beta t
Remaining predictors Health support from .29 5.72 ***
supervisor
Operator support .18 3.99 ***
Health support from .10 2.45 *
workmates
Supervisor support -.12 -2.26 *
F(4,683)=28.61, p<.001, R2=0.14
Table 5.22. Stepwise linear regression predicting safety behaviour
In the final regression equation, only one predictor variable ‘Workmate support for health’ made
any contribution to personal health behaviour, however, that contribution was small and barely
significant.
Model Predictor variables Standard Beta t
Remaining predictors Health support from -.082 -2.04
workmates
F(1,618)=4.15, p<.05, R2=.007
Table 5.23. Stepwise linear regression predicting health behaviour
5.7 Predicting self-reported accident involvement
Self-reported accident involvement is a binary dependent variable (i.e. responses are either ‘Yes’
or ‘No’), which is more suited to Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) than to traditional
regression analysis. In DFA a mathematical (discriminant) function is used to classify cases
between groups defined by categorical variables. Assigning coefficients to each independent
variable in a way that maximises the overlap of predicted and actual group membership derives
the discriminant function. When one or more independent variables result in a significant
70
![Page 78: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
discriminant function, classification may be considered superior to chance (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). To determine the scales that were most predictive of self-reported accident involvement,
the 11 scales outlined in Table 5.19 were entered stepwise into the DFA. Only one scale showed a
significant effect in the analysis, namely Health Activities. The function reached significance Chi
square (1) = 5.03, p<0.05, accounting for an overall success rate of 59%, which is not particularly
high given that 50% correct classification would occur by chance. The classification results table
indicated that 52% of those who had experienced an accident in the past 12 months (on that
installation) were correctly classified compared to 48% of accident victims who were not
correctly classified (i.e. slightly better than chance). Regarding those who had not had an
accident, 40% were correctly classified and 60% were not. Since the Health Activities scale was
the only one to show a significant effect, a further DFA was conducted to determine which of the
subscales could be contributing to the effect. The subscales include ‘Health advice’, ‘Rest &
relaxation’, ‘Aerobic exercise’ and ‘Eating habits’. The subsequent DFA with these subscales
entered stepwise into the analysis indicated that only one subscale, ‘Aerobic exercise’ contributed
to the effect, Chi square (1) = 11.81, p<0.01, accounting for an overall success rate of 70%. On
this occasion, 44% of those who had experienced an accident were correctly classified compared
to 56% of those who had an accident but were not correctly classified. Regarding those who had
not had an accident, 28% were correctly classified and 72% were not.
71
![Page 79: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
6 Overall Summary and General Discussion
The main objective of the current research was to examine perceptions of the health climate
offshore in order to evaluate its impact upon the behaviours of employees working on UK
offshore oil and gas installations. A questionnaire was developed to measure the perceptions of
offshore workers in respect to the health climate of the installation they worked on. The
questionnaire also measured the workers’ personal health behaviours, their organizational
citizenship behaviours, their safety behaviours and their feelings of organizational commitment.
Furthermore, a medics questionnaire was developed in order to make an assessment of the
facilities and resources that installations provided to facilitate and support employee health and
well-being.
An analysis of the dimensions measured in the current health offshore project was conducted.
This involved examining the relationships between employee health climate perceptions and self-
reports of behaviours in the workplace. The following discussion summarises the main findings in
relation to the research aims of the study. The implications of these findings will be discussed
with respect to the existing literature and research associated with the current field of study.
6.1 Health at Work, Organizational Commitment and Behaviours in the Workplace
Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment regards an employee’s feelings of obligation to an organization’s
well being. It involves an identification and incorporation of organizational membership into an
individual’s social identity, along with a belief that good performance is recognised and rewarded
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Organizational commitment has been shown to develop in
response to employee perceptions of the commitment and care that an organization shows
towards them. This ‘perceived support’ from the organization results in employees demonstrating
commitment to the organization alongside an enhanced level of job performance and actions
favourable towards the organization (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The current study examined
the relationship between health climate perceptions and reported organizational commitment.
The analyses found that the reported organizational commitment of respondents was strongly
correlated with perceptions of certain health climate dimensions. In particular, a strong
relationship was found between organizational commitment and respondent perceptions of the
support provided by the operating company for employees. A strong relationship was also found
between organizational commitment and the perceptions of the general support and support for
health that is provided by supervisors. Furthermore, significant relationships were found between
organizational commitment and occupational health management, and organizational
commitment and the healthy activities that employees felt were possible to undertake on their
installation. Although a correlational analysis only signals the strength of a relationship, the
pattern of positive correlations between the various health climate dimensions and organizational
commitment would appear to provide support for the hypothesis that a positive perception of the
health climate, fostered by the support offered by the organization and management towards
employee well being, impacts upon an employees feelings of organizational commitment.
However, as a causal analysis could not be conducted, the possibility that feelings of
organizational commitment affect how employees perceive the organization cannot be ruled out.
72
![Page 80: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Nevertheless, the suggestion that organizational commitment is affected by the various health
climates strikes a chord with literature previously examining the antecedents for organizational
commitment.
In particular, Rhoades & Eisenberger’s (2002) meta-analysis of the literature examining
organizational commitment highlighted three major forms of antecedents for organizational
commitment. These included a perception of fairness in the distribution of resources; the degree
to which supervisors value employee contributions and care about their well-being; and the
recognition of effort at work and the provision of good work conditions with regards to job
security and training. The current findings can be examined in terms of those antecedents. For
example organizations, which through the medic, facilitate healthy activities and promote well-
being may be perceived as distributing resources fairly. Employees may also feel that those
supervisors who provide both support for employees doing their work tasks, and support in terms
of health care, value their contribution and care about them. Supervisor support has also been
found to be an integral element of developing employee perceptions of organizational support
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore perceptions of organizational support, such as
recognition of efforts at work, were proposed by Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) to be a key
antecedent of organizational commitment and this was the climate dimension that had the
strongest relationship with respondent s’ feelings of organizational commitment. Satisfaction with
occupational health management, particularly regarding safety training and occupational disease
screening were also found to have a strong relationship with organizational commitment. It would
therefore appear that the dimensions in the current study that are found to most strongly correlate
with organizational commitment are also those dimensions which have been previously identified
as antecedents of organization commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002).
Safety Behaviours
A favourable safety climate has previously been shown to be a predictor of safety behaviours and
accidents (Cheyne, Tomas, Cox & Oliver, 1999; Mearns, Whitaker & Flin, 2001; Neal, Griffin &
Hart, 2000; Thompson, Hilton & Witt, 1998; Tomas, Melia & Oliver, 1999). It has become
generally accepted that a favourable safety climate (Zohar, 1980) is an essential component of
safe operations, with the safety climate of an organization being predictive of safety behaviours
and risk taking behaviours (Ostroff, Kinicki & Tamkins, 2003). The current study examined the
relationship between health climate perceptions and the reported safety behaviours of employees.
Significant correlations were found between safety behaviours and certain health climate
dimensions. In particular, ‘reporting dangers’ was found to have a strong relationship with the
dimensions of ‘support from the operator’, ‘supervisor support’, ‘supervisor support for health’
and the healthy activities that employees felt were possible to undertake on their installation. The
second safety behaviour dimension of ‘taking safety action’ was found to have a weaker pattern
of correlations with the health climate dimensions when compared to the dimension of ‘reporting
dangers’. However, as was the case for the dimension of ‘reporting dangers, the largest
correlation coefficients for ‘taking safety action’ were for the relationships with the dimensions of
‘operator support’ and ‘supervisor support for health’. Although a correlational analysis does not
specify causal factors, support has been found for a relationship between ‘reporting dangers’ and
perceptions of the health climate.
73
![Page 81: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
The analyses investigating the relationships between safety behaviours and health climate
dimensions show a similar pattern to the analysis for organizational commitment. Similarly to
those findings, safety behaviours were found to have strong relationships with the dimensions of
‘organizational support’, ‘supervisor support’ and ‘supervisor support for health’. This would fit
with earlier studies examining safety behaviours and safety climate. Previous research has found
recurring safety climate dimensions, such as management commitment to safety and priority for
safety over production, to emerge as predictors of unsafe behaviours or accidents (Flin, Mearns,
O’Connor & Bryden, 2000).
In the current study, organizational support and supervisor support for health had the strongest
relationship with safety behaviours. Employees may perceive organizational investment in the
health and well being of the workforce as being indicative of the organization’s overall approach
and commitment to safety. By prioritising and valuing the health of their employees,
organizations may highlight their commitment to safety and thus enhance perceptions of the
overall safety climate. This may affect the importance that employees place upon safe conduct in
the workplace. Interestingly the analysis found supervisor support for health to be highly
correlated with safety behaviours, however this was not the case for workmate support for health.
This could be explained through how employees characterise their supervisors. They may see
supervisors as representing the goals and priorities of the organization, and thus view them as a
reference for how the organization prioritises their well-being. Eisenberger et al. (1986) have
previously discussed how employees form a global perception of their valuation by the
organization they work for. Employees see supervisors as agents of the organization and view
their behaviour as indicative of the organization’s behaviour, thus if they feel the supervisor is
supportive of them, this is perceived as being indicative of the position of the organization. In a
study by Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades (2002) examining
perceived organizational support and employee retention, they conclude that supervisors, to the
degree with which they are identified with the organization, contribute to perceived
organizational support and ultimately the retention of staff.
Supervisors showing support for employee health may build an environment of openness towards
health matters, and make employee feel more comfortable about reporting problems and taking
action with regard to safety. Alternatively, the relationship between safety reporting and
supervisor support for health could be explained in terms of the employees’ willingness to report
safety issues. Employees who are more willing to report safety matters may simply generate a
more positive perception of their supervisor through their insistence to have supervisors listen to
safety issues they feel are important. In terms of the relationship between workmate support for
health and safety behaviours, workmates may not be seen as representing the goals and priorities
of the organization and thus their effect upon safety behaviours may be relatively minimal
compared to the effect of supervisors.
In summary, the finding of a relationship between safety behaviours and support from the
operator and support from the supervisors would appear to provide backing for the hypothesis
that employee perceptions about the support an organization provides for well-being and health
may be linked to outcome measures such as safety behaviours.
74
![Page 82: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Organizational Citizenship Behaviours
Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCBs) are said to describe those individual behaviours in
the workplace that are not directly recognised by an organization’s formal reward system, yet
serve to promote the general well-being of the company (Smith, Organ and Near 1983).
Organizational citizenship behaviours are difficult to measure and go beyond the formal
employment contract of an employee. Several studies have indicated that OCBs can be found to
enhance the performance of work groups and thus enhance overall organizational performance
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). The current study examined the relationship between health climate
perceptions and reported organizational citizenship behaviours.
Although some significant correlations were revealed in the correlational analysis for the
dimension of ‘making suggestions’, the correlation coefficients were not particularly large.
However, as was found in the earlier correlational analysis, the strongest significant relationships
between making suggestions and certain health climate dimensions were for ‘operator support’
and ‘supervisor support for health’. The other dimension of organizational citizenship behaviours,
‘speaking up’, showed only a weak pattern of correlations with the health climate dimensions.
However, this could be accounted for by the fact that the ‘speaking up’ dimension contained only
two items, and was not shown to be a particularly reliable dimension.
The finding that the organizational citizenship behaviour dimensions of ‘making suggestions’ was
most strongly correlated with the health climate dimensions of ‘operator support’ and ‘supervisor
support for health’ is similar to the other findings in the current study. Such findings would
appear to correspond with the idea that employee perceptions about organizational and supervisor
support for health may be linked to outcome measures such as OCBs. Podsakoff et al. (2000)
performed a meta-analysis on the research examining OCBs and identified a range of antecedents
to OCBs. In particular, the leadership behaviours of management and supervisors in an
organization, and the perceived support from the organization, were some of the antecedents that
were found to have a strong influence on OCBs. The current research found the largest
correlation coefficients for OCBs were between the OCB dimension of ‘making suggestions’ and
the health climate dimensions of ‘support from the operator’ and ‘supervisor support for health’.
This would appear to be consistent with the study by Podsakoff et al. (2000), which examined
some of the factors that may elicit OCBs.
In addition to this, a correlational analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the
OCBs reported by respondents, and the level of commitment they report feeling towards the
organization. Several studies have previously indicated that organizational commitment has a
positive relationship with various dimensions of OCBs (Organ, 1990; Puffer, 1987; Smith et al.,
1983). The analysis revealed significant correlations between organizational commitment and the
OCB dimension of ‘making suggestions’. Significant correlations were also found between
organizational commitment and the safety behaviour dimensions of ‘taking safety action’ and
‘reporting dangers’. The OCB dimension of ‘making suggestions’ was also found to have strong
relationships with the safety behaviour dimensions of ‘taking safety action’ and ‘reporting
dangers’. This could indicate that organizational commitment, safety behaviours and
organizational citizenship behaviours complement one another and may occur together.
Specifically for the finding of a strong relationship between OCBs and organizational
commitment, it could be that OCBs are more likely to occur if an individual has a strong feeling
75
![Page 83: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
of commitment to the organization. This would seem logical and has been previously indicated to
be the case (Organ, 1990; Puffer, 1987; Smith et al., 1983).
Thus, it is possible that organizational support, supervisor support and investment in health-
related activities help to foster employee feelings of commitment to the organization. This
commitment may result in enhanced organizational citizenship behaviours. However, it cannot be
determined conclusively at this stage whether organizational commitment results in heightened
levels of OCBs, or whether a high level of OCBs results in strong feelings of organizational
commitment.
6.2 Health at Work Dimensions
A correlational analysis examined the relationship between occupational health management and
health-related activities on the perceptions of organizational and supervisor support. The analysis
revealed strong relationships between the health-related activities that respondents felt were
possible to undertake on the installation, and the perceptions of support that respondents felt they
were given by the operator and by supervisors. Installations that provide good health-related
activities and good occupational health management procedures may help to foster feelings
among employees that the operator and supervisors are supporting their health and well being. An
examination of the relationship between perceptions of operator and supervisor support also
revealed strong correlation coefficients. This perhaps points to a convergence in perceptions of
the support provided by supervisors and the operator. Eisenberger et al. (2002) found that
supervisors, depending on the degree with which they are identified with the organization,
contribute to overall perceptions of operator support. Therefore supervisor support for the health
and well being of employees may be perceived by the workforce as an indication of the
organizations concern for the welfare of its employees.
6.3 Between Group Differences
The comparison of between group differences revealed several interesting findings. Respondents
employed by the operating company responded more positively to items regarding organizational
citizenship behaviours and organizational commitment. This may be explained by the fact that the
operating company employs them directly, whereas a third party employs contractors. The group
comparisons also revealed a distinct difference between supervisors and non-supervisors, and
admin/management staff, and non-admin/management staff, for perceptions of the support they
received from the operator. Supervisors and admin/management members were more likely to
feel that they were provided support by the operator and by supervisors. They were also more
likely to report having strong feelings of organizational commitment and were more likely to
show safety behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours. This would correspond with
previous research, which has found differences in the way supervisors and management staff
perceive the organization they work within. For example, Lester et al. (2002) found that
supervisors and non-supervisors perceive the reasons for psychological contract breach by an
organization differently. Non-supervisors tend to feel that the organization has violated its
obligation to its staff, whereas supervisors are more likely to attribute psychological contract
breach to circumstances out of the organization’s control.
76
![Page 84: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Employees aged 51-60 were also more likely to report undertaking safety behaviours and
organizational citizenship behaviours. They were also more likely to report stronger feelings of
organizational commitment than other age groups. This may indicate stronger feelings of loyalty
amongst this age group as they have probably been employed by the organization for longer than
other employees. Furthermore older employees are more likely to be supervisors. Older
employees also report being more likely to make safety suggestions and to report dangers. This
could be indicative of the confidence older employees have making suggestions, and perhaps the
experience of older employees in recognising dangers.
6.4 Issues
The majority of the issues made apparent in the first phase of study are also applicable to the
current study, however the present study also has a number of issues that require consideration.
Perhaps the most salient is the fact that the statistical analysis of the current data set was not
optimal, and a future analysis of the data should involve hierarchical linear modelling. This would
allow an examination of the relationships at different levels, for example supervisor and non-
supervisors, between the various dimensions that have been measured. In the current study only
an analysis of the relationships has been conducted. Although this has found a number of highly
significant relationships it does not account for causal factors, and a causal analysis of those
relationships at the various hierarchical levels is necessary. Furthermore, hierarchical linear
modelling is also required to perform a full analysis of the medics’ questionnaire and the
influence the data retrieved from that questionnaire has upon employee perceptions of the health
climate.
The dissemination of the medics’ questionnaire also uncovered some slight design difficulties,
which need to be addressed in any future study. Primarily, the main problem was that on several
installation two medics completed the questionnaire, however in some cases their answers
differed in regard to the activities supporting employee health. As it could not be determined
which answer was the most accurate, it was not possible to include responses to items containing
contrasting answers in the final analysis of the medics’ questionnaire. Thus several items were
dropped from the dissemination and analysis of various subsections. It was also not possible to
generate a descriptive overview of each installations investment in resources and facilities for
supporting health due to the conflict of responses on several question items.
Some dimensions revealed by the factor analysis, in particular ‘healthy eating’, ‘exercise’ and
‘taking action’ showed relatively little effect when their relationships with other dimensions was
examined. These dimensions in general contained relatively few items and did not return
particularly high reliability scores. This may explain the lack of an emergence of any strong
relationships between these factors and other more reliable factors. Any future studies may
attempt to include more items related to these dimensions, thus improving their reliability.
6.5 Conclusions
The current project assessed the health climate on 18 offshore installations on the UKCS in order
to evaluate its impact upon the behaviours of offshore workers employed on these installations.
The ‘Health at Work’ questionnaire was developed to measure the provision of occupational
77
![Page 85: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
health, health education and health promotion as perceived by the workforce, in addition to
monitoring perceptions of organizational commitment, support from the organization, supervisor
and workmates, safety behaviour, personal health behaviour and organizational citizenship
behaviour. The questionnaire scales were found to have good psychometric properties and could
be used as the basis for ‘Health at Work’ questionnaires for other industries.
Several findings became apparent from the analysis of the questionnaire data from the 703
respondents. Significant correlations were found between the various health climate dimensions
(in particular organizational support and supervisor support) and organizational commitment,
organizational citizenship behaviours and safety behaviours. Significant correlations between
support, health activities and occupational health management were also found. This could
indicate that investment in employee health helps to build perceptions of operator and supervisor
support, which have strong relationships with organizational commitment, and also safety
behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours. The role of supervisors in supporting
employee health is also highlighted through its consistent relationship with organizational
commitment, safety behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours. Supervisors may be
seen as representing the goals and priorities of the organization, and thus are viewed as a
reference for how the organization prioritises employee health.
In accordance with the hypotheses outlined in the introduction, stepwise linear regression analysis
was used to test for relationships between general and health related support provided by the
organization, supervisors and workmates and outcomes such as ‘organizational commitment’,
‘citizenship behaviours’, ‘safety behaviours’ and ‘personal health behaviour’. Three variables
predicted organizational commitment. Operator support contributed most to the model with high
operator support leading to greater levels of commitment. Health support from the supervisor
appeared to be as important as health support from workmates in contributing to the model, with
high levels of support from both leading to higher levels of commitment. With regard to
citizenship behaviours, high levels of health support from the supervisor contributed most to the
model followed by operator support. Three variables predicted safety behaviour. Health support
from the supervisor again appears to contribute most to the model followed by operator support.
Health support from workmates also makes a small but significant contribution. In all cases high
levels of support appear to predict improved safety behaviour, however, the contribution of
supervisor support in a general sense seem to makes a negative contribution with more support
from the supervisor leading to less safety behaviour. In the final regression equation, only one
predictor variable ‘Workmate support for health’ made any contribution to personal health
behaviour, however, that contribution was small and barely significant.
Discriminant function analysis was used to predict self-reported accident involvement. Only one
scale showed a significant effect in the analysis, namely Health Climate. The function reached
significance, accounting for 59% correct classifications. The analysis further indicated that 52%
of those who had an accident in the 12 months prior to the survey were correctly classified
compared to 48% of those who had not had an accident. Since the Health Climate scale was the
only one to show a significant effect, a further DFA was conducted to determine which of the
health climate subscales could be contributing to the effect. The subscales include ‘Health
advice’, ‘Rest & relaxation’, ‘Aerobic exercise’ and ‘Eating habits’. The subsequent DFA with
these subscales entered stepwise into the analysis indicated that only one subscale, ‘Aerobic
exercise’ contributed to the effect, accounting for 70% of correct classifications. On this
78
![Page 86: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
occasion, 44% of those who had experienced an accident were correctly classified compared to
56% of those who had not had an accident.
Responses to the medics questionnaire revealed some positive results as to how health was being
managed offshore, however, discrepancies between the information reported by medics from the
same installation undermined the reliability and validity of these data. This shortcoming aside, it
was found that many of the medics were actively involved in health surveillance, education and
promotion, despite the demands on their time due to unrelated activities, e.g. administrative and
support roles. For example, all 24 medics who returned questionnaires (representing 15
installations) report that they provide health screening and health risk assessments. In addition,
they all provided information to the workforce about the dangers of smoking and the importance
of exercise. Stop smoking campaigns had been run by 95% of respondents and 70% of medics
reported that their installation has had an on-site exercise programme running for the past 12
months. Healthy eating campaigns were also high on the agenda, however, only 50% of medics
reported that their installation had run stress management training in the past 12 months.
Interestingly, although medics reported being often involved in most areas of health promotion,
only 25% had received formal training in health promotion activities.
Any future analysis would benefit from the use of hierarchical linear modelling in order to
examine the relationships at different levels between the various dimensions that have been
measured.
79
![Page 87: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
7 References
Basen-Engquist, K., Hudmon, K. S., Tripp, M., & Chamberlain, R. (1998). Worksite health and
safety climate: Scale development and effects of a health promotion intervention. Preventive
Medicine, 27(1), 111-119.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bell, J. G., Bishop, C., Gann, M., Gilbert, M. J., Howe, W., Lamb, C. T., Leightondavies, G.,
McKie, N. P., Pictonrobinson, I., Prestage, A. M., Roythorne, C., & Turner, M. (1995). A
Systematic-Approach to Health Surveillance in the Workplace. Occupational Medicine-Oxford,
45(6), 305-310.
Benn, N.A. & Dickinson, T. (2004) The influence of Item Wording On Questionnaire Scale
Scores. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Society, Chicago, 2-4 April 2004.
Blair, S. N., Piserchia, P. V., Wilbur, C. S., & Crowder, J. H. (1986). A Public-Health
Intervention Model for Work-Site Health Promotion - Impact on Exercise and Physical-Fitness in
a Health Promotion Plan after 24 Months. Journal of the American Medical Association, 255(7),
921-926.
Bly, J. L., Jones, R. C., & Richardson, J. E. (1986). Impact of Worksite Health Promotion on
Health-Care Costs and Utilization - Evaluation of Johnson-and-Johnson Live for Life Program.
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 256(23), 3235-3240.
Cheyne, A., Tomas, J., Cox, S., & Oliver, A. (1999). Modelling employee attitudes to safety: a
comparison across sectors. European Psychologist, 4, 1-10.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23, 927 - 946.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the Psychological Contract for the
Employment Relationship: A Large Scale Survey. Journal of Management Studies 37(7), .
Cox, M., Shephard, R. J., & Corey, P. (1981). Influence of an Employee Fitness Program Upon
Fitness, Productivity and Absenteeism. Ergonomics, 24(10), 795-806.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
80
![Page 88: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and Employee
Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.
Falkenberg, L. (1987). Employee fitness programs: Their impact on the employee and the
organisation. Academy of Management Review, 12, 511-522.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P. & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate: identifying the
common features, Safety Science, 34, 177-192.
Forrester, B. G., Weaver, M. T., Brown, K. C., Phillips, J. A., & Hilyer, J. C. (1996). Personal
health-risk predictors of occupational injury among 3415 municipal employees. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 38(5), 515-521.
Golaszewksi, T. & Fisher, B. (2002). HeartCheck: the development and evolution of an
organizational heart health assessment. American Journal of Health Promotion, 17(2), 132-153.
Hoffman, J., & Hobson, C. (1984). Physical fitness and employee effectiveness. Personnel
Administrator, 29(4), 101-113.
Holzbach, R. L., Piserchia, P. V., McFadden, D. W., Hartwell, T. D., Herrmann, A. & Fielding, J.
E. (1990). Effect of a Comprehensive Health Promotion Program on Employee Attitudes. Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 32(10), 973-978.
Horsley, H. & MacKenzie, I. (1997). Lifestyle Survey amongst North Sea oil workers. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Occupational Health Offshore Conference: Aberdeen 26-28
March 1996, Aberdeen.
James, L. A. & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into
the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739-751.
Jones, R. C., Bly, J. L., & Richardson, J. E. (1990). A Study of a Work Site Health Promotion
Program and Absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 32(2), 95-99.
Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146.
Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for organizational citizenship behaviour; Do performing and
satisfying units have better ‘citizens’. York University Working Paper.
Kickul, J. (2001). When Organizations Break Their Promises: Employee Reactions to Unfair
Processes and Treatment. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 289-307.
Kidwell, R.E., Mossholder, K.W. & Benner, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational
citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of
Management, 23, 775-793.
81
![Page 89: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Kinnear, P. & Gray, C. (2000). SPSS for Windows Made Simple. Release 10. Sussex:
Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
Kondrasuk, J. (1984). Corporate physical fitness programs: The role of the personnel department.
Personnel Administrator, 29(12), 75-80.
Lee, K. & Allen, N. (2002). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The
Role of Affect and Cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A. & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.
Lester, S., Turnley, W., Bloodgood, J. & Bolino, M. (2002) Not seeing eye to eye: differences in
supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39-56.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and
consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87–
98.
McNeely, B. L. & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in
prosocial behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844.
Mearns, K. & Fenn, C. (1994). Diet, Health and the Offshore Worker - A pilot study. Suffolk:
HSE Books.
Mearns, K. & Hope, L. (2005). Health and well-being in the offshore environment: The
management of personal health. Research Report 305. Norwich: HSE Books.
Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M. & Flin, R. (2001). Benchmarking safety climate in hazardous
environments: A longitudinal, inter-organizational approach. Risk Analysis, 21(4), 771-786.
Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M. & Flin, R. (2003). Safety climate, safety management practice and
safety performance in offshore environments. Safety Science, 41, 641-680.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance
of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. A. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226-256.
Neal, A., Griffin, M. A. & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety
climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 99-109.
82
![Page 90: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12, 43–72. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48: 775–802.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J. & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W.
C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology. (Vol 12. pp. 565-593). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Parkes, K. R. (1998). Psychosocial aspects of stress, health and safety on North Sea installations.
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 24(5), 321-333.
Pender, N. (1989). Health promotion in the workplace: Suggested directions for research.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 3(3), 38-43.
Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). An examination of substitutes for leadership within
levels of analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 289-328.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S., Painea, J. & Bachracha, J. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72:615-621.
Rhoades, L, & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Ribisl, K. M. & Reischl, T. M. (1993). Measuring the Climate for Health at Organizations -
Development of the Worksite Health Climate Scales. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 35(8), 812-824.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574-599.
Robinson, S. L. & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect of
unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289-298.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.
83
![Page 91: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Rost, K., Connell, C., Schechtman, K., Barzilai, B., & Fisher, E. (1990). Predictors of employee
involvement in a worksite health promotion program. Health Education Quarterly, 17, 395-407.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Sloan, R. & Gruman, J. (1988). Participation in workplace health promotion programs: The
contribution of health and organizational factors. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 269-288.
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Environments - toward a Social
Ecology of Health Promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6-22.
Tepper, B. & Taylor, E. (2003). Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates' procedural
justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviours. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 97-105.
Tomas, J. M., Melia, J. L. & Oliver, A. (1999). A cross validation of a structural equation model
of accidents: organizational and psychological variables as predictors of work safety. Work and
Stress, 13, 49-58.
Thompson, R., Hilton, T. & Witt, A. (1998) Where the rubber meets the shop floor: a
confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety. Journal of Safety Research,
29, 15-24.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W. & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the
employee-organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 1089-1121.
Turnley, W. H. & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit,
loyalty and neglect. Human Relations, 52, 895-922.
Van Dyne, L. & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behaviours of contingent workers in
Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692-703.
Whitener, E.M. (2001). Do "high commitment" human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management,
27, 515-535.
Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-
617.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organisations: theoretical and applied implications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96-102.
84
![Page 92: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Appendix 1 HEALTH AT WORK SURVEY TOOL 2004
Section 1 General Information
The general information supplied in this section will enable us to broadly determine what work you do,
your age group and how long you have worked on this installation. Please be assured that this information
will remain strictly confidential and it will not be possible to identify you personally as only group data will
be used in reports.
1. What is the name of the installation you work on?
2. Are you employed by? An operating company... � A contracting company... �
3. Are you a supervisor? No... � Yes…�
4. Are you a member of the core crew on this installation? No... � Yes…�
5. How many years have you worked on this installation?
Less than 1 year... � 1-5 years... � 6-10 years…� More than 10 years…�
85
![Page 93: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Section 2 Health on this Installation
In this section we want to find out about health behaviour on this installation. For each item, please indicate your level of agreement
on the scale by circling the appropriate number.
On this installation, it is possible to: Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Agree
…Get advice relating to work related health issues 1 2 3 4 5
…Get advice relating to improving personal health 1 2 3 4 5
…Get assistance to quit smoking (e.g. gum, patches)
…Eat bran or other high fibre foods
…Take aerobic exercise regularly
…Get reasonably good sleep
…Drink clean water
…Eat a balanced diet
…Get advice to manage/lose weight
…Get advice on drinking or alcohol related problems
…Manage stress levels
…Avoid salt in foods
…Avoid foods with a high fat content
…Get advice for stress management (e.g. relaxation techniques)
…Use a well-equipped gym regularly
…Relax when offshift
…Engage in organised activities / competitions
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 (e.g. quiz, pool competition) when offshift
On this installation, it is possible to: Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Agree
…Engage in individual activities and hobbies when 1 2 3 4 5 offshift
…Participate in special health promotion activities 1 2 3 4 5
86
![Page 94: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Section 3 Support from the Operator
In this section, we want to find out how you view the organisation mainly responsible for the installation you are
currently working on. Again, your responses are completely confidential. Please read each statement carefully, focusing
on the main operator responsible for this installation, and circle the response you agree with for each statement.
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree
The operating company values my 1 2 3 4 5contribution to its well-being
If the operating company could hire 1 2 3 4 5someone to replace me at a lower salary itwould do soThe operating company fails to appreciate 1 2 3 4 5any extra effort from me
The operating company strongly considers 1 2 3 4 5my goals and values
The operating company would ignore any 1 2 3 4 5complaint from me
The operating company disregards my best 1 2 3 4 5interests when it makes decisions that affectmeHelp is available from the operating 1 2 3 4 5company when I have a problem
The operating company really cares about 1 2 3 4 5my well-being
Even if I did the best job possible, the 1 2 3 4 5operating company would fail to notice
The operating company is willing to help me 1 2 3 4 5when I need a special favour
The operating company cares about my 1 2 3 4 5general satisfaction at work
If given the opportunity, the operating 1 2 3 4 5company would take advantage of me
The operating company shows very little 1 2 3 4 5concern for me
The operating company cares about my 1 2 3 4 5opinionsThe operating company takes pride in my 1 2 3 4 5accomplishments at work
The operating company tries to make my 1 2 3 4 5job as interesting as possible
This operating company values healthy 1 2 3 4 5 workers
This operating company is generally concerned 1 2 3 4 5 about my health and well-being
It is easy to see that the operating company’s 1 2 3 4 5 top management has a commitment to improving employee health
It is easy to see that OIMs have a commitment 1 2 3 4 5 to improving employee health
87
![Page 95: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Section 4 Your Supervisors & Workmates ,The people you work with can also play an important role in the workplace. Thinking of the people you work with most closely
please rate the following statements. Circle the response you agree with the most.
YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree
My supervisor is supportive when problems 1 2 3 4 5 come up at work.
My supervisor is willing to listen to my 1 2 3 4 5 work-related problems
My supervisor shows concern about the 1 2 3 4 5 welfare of those under him/her
My supervisor is someone who I can truly 1 2 3 4 5 trust
My supervisor gives clear and helpful 1 2 3 4 5 feedback about my performance
My supervisor makes it clear what is 1 2 3 4 5 expected of me
My supervisor is very good about giving 1 2 3 4 5 advice when problems arise at work
My supervisor is very helpful to me in 1 2 3 4 5 getting my job done
YOUR WORKMATES
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree
My workmates show concern about the 1 2 3 4 5 welfare of other people at work
My workmates are people who I can truly 1 2 3 4 5 trust
My workmates care about me as a person 1 2 3 4 5
My workmates go out of their way to praise 1 2 3 4 5 good work
My workmates give clear and helpful 1 2 3 4 5 feedback about my performance
My workmates are very good about giving 1 2 3 4 5 advice when problems arise at work
My workmates do a good job of teaching 1 2 3 4 5 useful skills
My workmates are very helpful to me in 1 2 3 4 5 getting my job done
88
![Page 96: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
Section 5 Your Health
This section concerns your health, fitness and dietary habits. This information will provide us with an overview of personal health
habits. We are also interested in what you think would be beneficial for your personal health on this installation. Please answer as
accurately as possible – again, this information will remain strictly confidential.
1. In general, how would you rate your health? Excellent…� Very good…� Good…� Fair…� Poor...�
2. Your age (please tick appropriate box): 20-30 years…� 31-40 years…� 41-50 years…� 51-65 years…�
3. Have you been involved in an accident/incident on this installation that required a trip to the sick bay in the past 12 months? No... � Yes…�
4. Have you had to consult the medic regarding your general health in the past 12 months? No... � Yes…�
If yes, what broadly describes the purpose of your visit(s)?
Cold or flu….� Headache…� Existing medical condition…� Muscular pain…� Other…�
5. Have you ever asked the medic how you might improve your general health or fitness? No... � Yes…�
6. Has the medic ever offered you advice on how you might improve your general health and/or fitness during an unrelated consultation? ……………………………………………………. No... � Yes…�
7. Have you ever felt ill but not reported to the medic in order to avoid a medical referral? No…� Yes…�
8. What is your current: Weight? _____________ and Height? _________________________ (either stones or kilos, please state which) (either feet or metres, please state which)
9. In terms of your eating habits, how often do you do make an active attempt to do any of the following when working on this installation?
Never Rarely A few times a week
Once a At day every
meal Eat available fresh fruit 1 2 3 4 5
Eat fresh vegetables & salad 1 2 3 4 5
Choose ‘healthy options’ 1 2 3 4 5
Reduce use of salt 1 2 3 4 5
Eat more bran & fibre 1 2 3 4 5
Avoid/reduce intake of fried/deep fried foods 1 2 3 4 5
Avoid/reduce intake of puddings & desserts 1 2 3 4 5
Avoid sugary or fizzy drinks 1 2 3 4 5
89
![Page 97: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
10. Do/Did you smoke? I am a smoker.……………………………………....� I used to smoke but have given up completely.….� *please go to Q.12 I have never smoked………………………………..� *please go to Q.12
11. If you do smoke, are you interested in quitting?
No, not at the moment ...� Possibly...� Definitely – I would like some help to quit...�
12. When working on this installation, how often do you manage to get the recommended amount of cardiovascular exercise (i.e. at least 30 minutes, three times a week).
Never……….� Rarely……….� I use the gym occasionally……….� I use the gym at least three times a week……….� I believe I get sufficient physical activity in my work……….�
11. If you never or rarely take exercise when working offshore, what is the main reason for this?
Poor gym facilities offshore……………....� Gym always too busy………………..……� Too tired after work……………………..…� Have no interest in exercise……………...�
Dislike working out in gyms..……………..� Injury prevents me from exercising………� Not enough time after shift……………..…� Galley not open late enough in evening…�
12. Have you taken part in any organised Health Promotion activities on this installation in the past 12 months? No…� Yes…�
13. In the past 12 months, have you received health promotion advice or information on this installation about:
Healthy Eating No…� Yes – the information was helpful…� Yes – but the information was unhelpful…�
Fitness & Exercise No…� Yes – the information was helpful…� Yes – but the information was unhelpful…�
Stopping Smoking No…� Yes – the information was helpful…� Yes – but the information was unhelpful…�
Alcohol Consumption No…� Yes – the information was helpful…� Yes – but the information was unhelpful…�
Losing Weight No…� Yes – the information was helpful…� Yes – but the information was unhelpful…�
Managing Stress No…� Yes – the information was helpful…� Yes – but the information was unhelpful…�
90
![Page 98: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
Section 6 Taking Action
In this section, read each statement carefully and evaluate how frequently you engage in the activities listed. Please circle the number
on the scale that best reflects your behaviour.
Not at all To a great On this extent installation… …I make suggestions to improve work 1 2 3 4 5 procedures
…I express opinions honestly even when other 1 2 3 4 5 think differently
…I do not keep doubts about a work issue to 1 2 3 4 5 myself – even when everyone else disagrees
…I make suggestions to improve the 1 2 3 4 5 organisation
…I try to draw management attention to 1 2 3 4 5 potentially unsafe or hazardous activities
…I try to make innovative suggestions to 1 2 3 4 5 improve the installation
…I inform management of potentially 1 2 3 4 5 unproductive policies and practices
…I am willing to speak up when policy or rules 1 2 3 4 5 do not contribute to the achievement of the installation’s goals …I suggest revisions to work practices to 1 2 3 4 5 achieve organisational objectives
91
![Page 99: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Section 7 Satisfaction with Occupational Health Management
In this section we want to know how satisfied you are with the management of your occupational health on
this installation. Please read each statement carefully and circle the response you agree with for each
statement. If the statement does not apply to you please put a tick in the first column.
me
On this installation, to what extent are you satisfied with:
Does not apply to
Health surveillance for vibration related diseases (e.g. vibration white finger)
Health surveillance for respiratory diseases
Availability of PPE for respiratory protection
Availability of PPE for eye protection
Availability of chemical gloves
Availability of ear defenders
Training for manual handling
Training for correct use of PPE
Training in COSHH
Training in the safe use of tools and equipment
Training to avoid hearing damage
Training to avoid vibration related diseases
Very Neither Dis- Very dis-satisfied Satisfied satisfied satisfie satisfie
or d d dissatisfi ed
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
What type of work do you mostly do (tick only one):-
Production………………..� Drilling………………� Operations………..�
Admin/Management…� Maintenance…….� Catering…………….�
Deck crew…………………� Construction……..� Other…………………�
92
![Page 100: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
Section 8 Support for Health
The people you work with can also play an important role in your health. Thinking of the people you
work with most closely, please rate the following statements. Circle the response you agree with the
most.
On this installation: Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Agree
My supervisor ensures that my general 1 2 3 4 5 health is not endangered by my day to day work
My supervisor aims as far as practicable to 1 2 3 4 5 remove threats to my general health from the work environment
My supervisor is sympathetic to health 1 2 3 4 5 problems
I can discuss health problems with my 1 2 3 4 5 supervisor
Rules relating to health are always enforced 1 2 3 4 5 by my supervisor
My workmates would be supportive of me if 1 2 3 4 5 I started exercising
My workmates share health information 1 2 3 4 5with me
My workmates would help people who 1 2 3 4 5were trying to quit smoking
My workmates are interested in hearing 1 2 3 4 5about new health information/advice
My workmates would support me if I was 1 2 3 4 5trying to adopt good health habits (e.g.eating healthily, exercising etc)
My workmates would encourage me if I 1 2 3 4 5was trying to lose weight
My workmates would not ridicule anyone 1 2 3 4 5here for trying to look after or improve their healthI can always get help and support from 1 2 3 4 5workmates when I ask
I feel I can openly talk about safety issues 1 2 3 4 5for a task with supervisors and get helpand support
93
![Page 101: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
Section 9 Safety Behaviour
The following set of statements is concerned with what you do about safety on this installation. Please read
each statement carefully and consider your response in relation to this installation. Circle the response you
agree with for each statement.
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5If I know a workmate is going to do a hazardous job, I remind him/her of the hazards I do whatever I can to improve safety 1 2 3 4 5 even confronting other workmates about their unsafe acts
I would remind or encourage another 1 2 3 4 5 employee to maintain good housekeeping
When I see a potential safety hazard, I 1 2 3 4 5 correct it myself if possible
I make suggestions to management for 1 2 3 4 5 improving safety of the work environment
I put pressure on management for 1 2 3 4 5 improving safety of the workplace
1 2 3 4 5 I report near misses
1 2 3 4 5 I report minor accidents
1 2 3 4 5 I report hazardous working conditions
94
![Page 102: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Section 10 You & This Installation In this section, we want to find out how you feel about working on this installation. Again, your responses
are completely confidential. Please circle the response you agree with for each statement.
Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree
I feel a strong sense of belonging to this 1 2 3 4 5 installation
I feel like part of this installation 1 2 3 4 5
I feel like ‘part of the family’ on this 1 2 3 4 5installation
In my work, I like to feel that I am making 1 2 3 4 5some effort not just for myself but for this installation as well
I am willing to put myself out to help this 1 2 3 4 5installation
I am quite proud to tell people I work on 1 2 3 4 5this installation
To know that I had made a contribution to 1 2 3 4 5the good of this installation (organization)would please me
95
![Page 103: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Section 11 FURTHER COMMENTS
Do you have any further comments regarding the management of your health and
safety on this installation? (Please continue on the reverse of the page if necessary
Many thanks for your time and effort in completing this survey. Questionnairesshould be returned to:
Lorraine Hope, Industrial Psychology Research Centre, William Guild Building,University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 2UB
96
![Page 104: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Appendix 2 MEDICS QUESTIONNAIRE 2004
Section 1 GENERAL INFORMATION In this section, we require some basic information about your tenure as an offshore medic.
2. What is the name of the installation you work on?
2. Are you directly employed by? The operating company... � A medical agency... �
3. How many years have you worked offshore as a medic?
Less than 1 year... � 1-5 years... � 6-10 years…� More than 10 years…�
4. How many years have you worked as a medic on this installation?
Less than 1 year... � 1-5 years... � 6-10 years…� More than 10 years…�
Section 2 SCREENING & SURVEILLANCE
The information supplied in this section will enable us to broadly determine what health screening and surveillance activities took place on this installation in the past 12 months. Please read each question carefully and where extra information is required please answer as fully as possible.
General Health Screening
1. Was information about health screening for general health problems (e.g. high blood pressure,
cholesterol etc) provided on the installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
If yes, how was this information disseminated?
Organised education/information meetings…………..�
Information leaflets/posters in the workplace…..�
Information leaflets/posters in recreation areas……�
By supervisors…………………………………………………….�
By the medic……..……………………………………………………�
No formal information procedure……………………….�
Other? Please specify:
2. Was blood pressure screening provided on this installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No..�
3. Was cholesterol screening provided on this installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
4. Were blood tests for sugar (diabetes screening) provided on this installation during the past 12 months?
Yes…� No... �
5. Were health risk assessments provided on this installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
6. Was this screening available to all members of the workforce on this installation? Yes…� No... �
If no, please indicate which personnel on the installation are eligible for this screening (e.g. operator staff,
contractor staff etc):
97
![Page 105: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________
Occupational Health Screening/Surveillance
7. Did this installation provide screening/surveillance for the following occupation-related conditions in the past 12 months:
Dermatitis………………………………..� HAVs…………………………………..…………………………………………..�
Hearing Loss…………………………...� Respiratory problems (e.g. occupational asthma)………..�
Musculoskeletal problems……….� Other (please specify): …………………………………………………….
8. Was this screening available to all members of the workforce on this installation? Yes…� No... �
If no, please which personnel on the installation are eligible for this screening:
9. Were any other health check initiatives provided on this installation for the workforce in the past 12 months? Please describe:
Section 3 EXERCISE & FACILITIES
In this section we want to assess what facilities and opportunities are available for the workforce for physical exercise.
1. Was information (e.g. posters, brochures, videos, talks) about the importance of exercise/physical
activity provided on the installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
2. Is there an exercise facility (gym) available for employees on this installation? Yes…� No... �
3. What equipment is available?
Aerobic (e.g. bikes, treadmill)…..�
Free weights……………………………….�
Resistance machines………………….�
Other…………………………………………..�
None…………………………………………..�
3. Does the operator of this installation offer subsidised membership fees at a gym onshore?
Yes…� No... �
If yes, which personnel on this installation qualify for this subsidy?
5. In the past 12 months, have there been any health promotion activities relating to exercise and
physical activity? Yes…� No... �
If yes, what form did these activities take? Tick the following statements as applicable:
i. There was an on-site exercise programme underway during the past 12 months. Yes…� No... �
98
![Page 106: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
ii. The availability of an exercise programme(s) was promoted in multiple ways (newsletters, notice
boards, presentations). Yes…� No... �
iii. There was a written plan to identify and recruit high-risk individuals. Yes…� No... �
iv. Incentives were provided to increase participation. Yes…� No... �
v. The impact of the exercise programme was evaluated (i.e. programme end survey). Yes…� No... �
6. Does the operator of this installation sponsor sports events or teams (e.g. charity cycle, corporate
challenge) for employees? Yes…� No... �
7. Does the operator of this installation have a written policy statement supporting employee physical
fitness? Yes…� No... �
8. Does the operator of this installation provide any general incentives for engaging in physical activity
(i.e. incentives not associated with a particular programme)? Yes…� No... �
9. If you have any further comments regarding physical activity/exercise/gym facilities on this installation,
please note them in the box below:
Section 4 SMOKING MANAGEMENT
In this section we want to find out about the management of smoking on thisinstallation.
1. Was information (e.g. posters, brochures, videos, talks) about the dangers of smoking provided on the
installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
2. Does the operator of this installation have a written smoking policy? Yes…� No... �
3. What is the extent of the smoking ban?
Smoking permitted in designated areas of the installation Yes…� No... �
A total ban throughout the installation Yes…� No... �
If smoking is permitted on the installation:
How many smoking rooms are available? Work areas: ___________ Recreational areas: ___________
4. What facilities are provided in smoking and non-smoking recreational areas (please tick all that apply)
Comfortable Seating
TV DVD/ Video Library
Newspapers & Books
Stereo/ Music
Activity Equipment (darts, board games, pool table)
Smoking Room
Non-
smoking Room
99
![Page 107: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
5. In your opinion, do non-smoking recreational areas have the same facilities (i.e. TV, video etc.) as
smoking areas?
Definitely yes 1 2 3 4 5 Definitely not
6. Has this operator of this installation provided a written policy statement defining punitive measures
(such as verbal warnings, fines, suspensions etc) for non-compliance with smoking policy?
Yes…� No... �
7. Are anti-smoking policy messages displayed throughout the installations? Yes…� No... �
8. Does the operator of this installation provide any type of incentives for being a non-smoker?
Yes…� No... �
9. Does the operator of this installation provide any type of incentives for quitting smoking?
Yes…� No... �
10. In the past 12 months, have there been any direct activities related to smoking cessation?
Yes…� No... �
If yes, what form did these activities take? Tick the following statements as applicable:
i. There was an on-site smoking cessation programme underway during the past 12 months.
Yes…� No... �
ii. The availability of a smoking cessation programme(s) was promoted in multiple ways (newsletters,
notice boards, presentations). Yes…� No... �
iii. There was a written plan to identify and recruit high-risk individuals. Yes…� No... �
iv. Nicotine patches (or gum etc) were provided free OR subsidised on the installation. Yes…� No... �
v. Incentives were provided to increase participation. Yes…� No... �
vi. The impact of the Stop Smoking programme was evaluated (i.e. number of smokers who quit)?
Yes…� No... �
9. Are tobacco products sold on this installation? Yes…� No... �
10. Is tobacco sold at a tax-discounted price? Yes…� No... �
If you have any further comments regarding smoking on this installation, please note them in the box
below:
100
![Page 108: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
i
Section 5 STRESS
In this section we want to find out about workforce stress and the management of stress on this installation.
1. In the past 12 months, have there been any health promotion activities relating to stress or related
issues (e.g. relaxation training, time management, communication)? Yes…� No... �
If yes, what form did these activities take? Tick the following statements as applicable:
There was an on-site stress management programme underway during the past 12 months.
Yes…� No... �
ii. The availability of a stress management programme(s) was promoted in multiple ways (newsletters,
notice boards, presentations). Yes…� No... �
iii. There was a written plan to identify and recruit high-risk individuals. Yes…� No... �
iv. Incentives were provided to increase participation. Yes…� No... �
vi. The impact of the stress management programme was evaluated (i.e. programme end survey)?
Yes…� No... �
2. Was internal or external management (or medic) training on stress related issues provided in the past
12 months (performance review, communication, personnel, management)? Yes…� No... �
3. If you have any further comments regarding stress, and the management of workforce stress on this
installation, please note them in the box below:
Section 6 DIET & HEALTHY EATING
In this section we want to find out about diet and healthy eating on thisinstallation.
1. Was information (e.g. posters, brochures, videos, talks) about diet and healthy eating provided on the
installation during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
2. In the past 12 months, have there been any health promotion activities relating to healthy eating?
Yes…� No... �
If yes, what form did these activities take? Tick the following statements as applicable:
i. There was an on-site diet & healthy eating programme underway during the past 12 months.
Yes…� No... �
ii. The availability of a healthy eating programme(s) was promoted in multiple ways (newsletters, notice
boards, presentations). Yes…� No... �
iii. There was a written plan to identify and recruit high-risk individuals. Yes…� No... �
iv. Incentives were provided to increase participation. Yes…� No... �
101
![Page 109: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
vi. The impact of the healthy eating programme was evaluated (i.e. programme end survey)?
Yes…� No... �
3. Are the following items available in the galley on a daily basis? (circle as appropriate)
Skimmed milk Never Sometimes Always
Low fat spreads Never Sometimes Always
Fresh fruit Never Sometimes Always
Whole grain bread Never Sometimes Always
Salad bar Never Sometimes Always
Reduced fat salad dressing Never Sometimes Always
Steamed or baked vegetables
Non-fried potatoes
Low fat mayonnaise
Drinking Water
Never Sometimes Always
Never Sometimes Always
Never Sometimes Always
Never Sometimes Always
Reduced fat cheeses Never Sometimes Always
Low fat main meal options Never Sometimes Always
Low fat breakfast options Never Sometimes Always
4. Are ‘healthy options’ provided in the galley identified by any special labelling (i.e. additional new
labelling not original commercial packaging)? Yes…� No... �
5. If you have any further comments regarding diet and eating habits on this installation, please note
them in the box below:
Section 7 ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT
In this section we want to find out about general levels of support for health
management activities on this installation.
1. Were there any organised general personal health promotion programmes or initiatives (e.g. smoking
cessation, get fit, lose weight) on this installation in the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
2. If Health Promotion programmes have been running on this installation in the past 12 months, what
specific health behaviours were highlighted in the course of these programmes?
Lose weight � Get Fit �
102
![Page 110: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Stop smoking � Healthy Eating �
Other? Please specify
3. Does the installation have an individual person responsible for the delivery of health promotion?
Yes…� No... �
4. Did the installation conduct a health needs assessment in the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
5. Did the installation evaluate health promotion efforts during the past 12 months? Yes…� No... �
6. Did the installation provide general health promotional messages to employees during the past
12 months? Yes…� No... �
Section 8 Accidents, incidents & your role
The data you provide in this section will provide an objective overview of incident rates for illness and injury on this installation, employing the RIDDOR definitions. To ensure that the conclusions reached in this study are as representative as possible, it is important you check your records/log so that the figures reported are as accurate as possible. If you cannot do this for whatever reason, please indicate who would be the best person to ask for this information or provide an estimate (but please indicate where you provide any approximate figures)
1. In the third column of the table below, please complete the frequency of each type of incident on this
installation for during the past 12 months.
Incident Definition Frequency of incident on this installation during the past 12 months
Fatality A death as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work
Major injury An injury including fractures (other than fingers, thumbs or toes); amputations; dislocation of shoulder, hip, knee or spine; loss of sight; burns or penetrating injuries to the eye; acute illness; hypothermia; heat-induced illness or loss of consciousness requiring admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours
Over 3 day injury
A work-related injury where a person at work is incapacitated for work of a kind he/she might reasonably be expected to do under his/her contract of employment, or, if there is no such contract, in the normal course of his/her work for more than three consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident, but including any days which would have not been working days such as leave days, weekends, holidays, etc.)
Dangerous occurrence
An incident with the potential to cause a major injury, including; failure of lifting machinery, pressure systems or breathing apparatus; collapse of scaffolds; fires; explosions; release of flammable or dangerous substances, etc.
Reportable disease
An occupational disease as specified in RIDDOR
2. Overall, how many visits did workers make to the sick bay in the past 12 months (April 2003 – April
2004)?
103
![Page 111: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
_____________________________________________________________ _______
3. How many medevacs from this installation took place in the past 12 months? ____________________
4. How many of these medevacs were injury related and how many were for medical purposes?
Injuries = __________ Medical = __________
5. Did any of these medevacs involve cardiac problems (e.g. heart attack)
Yes…� No... �
If yes, how many?
6. Approximately what percentage of visits to the medic are for advice relating to general personal health
improvement (i.e. not as part of a consultation for injury or illness)? Please circle as appropriate.
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
7. When it comes to health promotion on this installation how often are you involved in any of the
following:
Never Rarely Someti Often Very mes often
Deciding what organised health promotion 1 2 3 4 5 activities to carry out on this installation?
Implementing/Organising the health 1 2 3 4 5 promotion activities on the installation?
Actively informing the workforce about 1 2 3 4 5 health promotion activities?
Organising special events relating to health 1 2 3 4 5 promotion?
Encouraging the workforce to take part in 1 2 3 4 5 health promotion activities to improve their general health
Securing resources from the operating 1 2 3 4 5 company for extra health promotion activities
Carrying out evaluations of organised 1 2 3 4 5 health promotion activities
8. Have you ever had any formal training in:
Health Promotion? Yes…� No... �
Diet & Nutrition? Yes…� No... �
Exercise & Fitness? Yes…� No... �
Stress Management Yes…� No... �
Identifying Occupational Diseases? Yes…� No... � Other ……………
9. In the past 12 months, have there been any training courses for the workforce in the following
occupational health areas
Stress…………………………� Safe use of hand held power tools………�
104
![Page 112: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
Avoiding skin problems……..� Maintaining a healthy back……………….�
Safe manual handling……….� Proper use of PPE…………………………�
Other……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
10. Has this installation received any awards for health promotion activities? Yes…� No... �
If yes, which award was received most recently?
Section 9 FURTHER COMMENTS
Do you have any further comments or suggestions regarding the management of
health and safety on this installation?
Many thanks for your time and effort in completing this survey. Questionnaires should be returned to:
Lorraine Hope, Industrial Psychology Research Centre, William GuildBuilding,
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 2UB
105
![Page 113: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98
Published by the Health and Safety Executive 06/06
![Page 114: RESEARCH REPORT 376This project was designed to assess health climate offshore and to evaluate its impact upon the health ... undertaken using a Health at Work questionnaire, incorporating](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022042113/5e8ea1501e87bd5eb6603613/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
RR 376