| 1. |
- Berglund, Erik, et al.
(author)
-
Work-life balance predicted work ability two years later: A cohort study of employees in the Swedish energy and water sector
- 2021
-
In: BMC Public Health. - : BMC. - 1471-2458. ; 21:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Work-life balance (WLB) is the extent to which individual’s multiple life roles and demands carry over between each role. WLB can be divided into work interference with personal life (WIPL) and personal life interference with work (PLIW). This study aimed to investigate longitudinal associations between WIPL, PLIW and work ability outcomes.Methods In this cohort study, 224 employees in the energy and water sector in Sweden were followed-up over 2 years. Three questions derived from the Work Ability Index were used for measuring work ability outcome: current work ability compared with lifetime best; work ability regarding physical; and mental demands. Logistic regression models were used to analyse longitudinal associations between work ability and WIPL and WIPL respectively, controlling for workplace (company), position at work, experience of leadership quality, demographics, and work ability.Results Work ability compared to lifetime best were associated with WIPL in the adjusted logistic regression models (odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15–2.73), and PLIW (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.66–6.74). Work ability regarding physical demands was associated with WIPL (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.07–2.40). Work ability regarding mental demands was associated with WIPL (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.03–2.44) and PLIW (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.31–6.32).Conclusion In this two-year longitudinal study, lower WIPL predicted good/excellent overall work ability compared with lifetime best, higher work ability regarding physical and mental demands, and lower PLIW predicted good/excellent overall work ability compared with lifetime best and higher work ability regarding and mental demands.
|
|
| 2. |
- Anderzén, Ingrid, et al.
(author)
-
Predictors of Well-being at work
- 2016
-
In: Scientific Programme.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The concept of healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity. Conditions in today’s working life make new approaches necessary in order to limit negative health effects of work and to enhance wellbeing and health at work. About 24 % of the working population in Sweden report to have had work-related disorders during the last twelve months. In order to achieve a sustainable working life it is likely that strategies and actions from different and new angles are needed.ObjectivesThe present study is a part of a larger study (the GodA –study; a Swedish acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) and aims to investigate how work environment factors, work ability, work motivation, work and life balance predict well-being at work.MethodsThe GodA study is a 2-year follow up study in Sweden with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers. One of the companies serves as “intervention-company”, the other two as controls. A baseline questionnaire was sent out 2013 and the results from the survey were reported back to the companies, which have been processing their results. In spring 2015 a follow up survey has been administered. Data have been analysed with univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses.ResultsA baseline multivariate linear regression model, which included background factors, perceived psychosocial work climate and work environmental factors (motivation, leadership, employee responsibilities, efficacy, work ability and management committed to employee health) and work life balance, showed that psychosocial work climate (B= .48, 95% CI=.27 – .69) leadership, (B= .27, 95% CI=.05– .49), work ability (B= -.12, 95% CI= .03 – .21), motivation (B= -33, 95% CI= .14 – .51) and work life balance (B= -.34, 95% CI=-.57– -.12), were signifi-cantly associated with well-being at work and explained 40% of the variance (Adjusted R2=.40, p<.001).ConclusionsResults showed that not only work environment factors are important predictors. To maintain a healthy work place a promotion of balance between work and private life is needed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Anderzén, Ingrid, et al.
(author)
-
Predictors of well-being at work
- 2015
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- BackgroundThe concept of healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity. Conditions in today’s working life make new approaches necessary in order to limit negative health effects of work and to enhance wellbeing and health at work. About 24 % of the working population in Sweden report to have had work-related disorders during the last twelve months. In order to achieve a sustainable working life it is likely that strategies and actions from different and new angles are needed.The present study is a part of a larger study (the GodA –study; a Swedish acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) and aims to investigate how work environment factors, work ability, work motivation, work and life balance predict well-being at work.MethodsThe GodA study is a 2-year follow up study in Sweden with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers. One of the companies serves as “intervention-company”, the other two as controls. A baseline questionnaire was sent out 2013 and the results from the survey were reported back to the companies, which have been processing their results. In spring 2015 a follow up survey has been administered. Data from the baseline measurements have been analysed with univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses.ResultsA baseline multivariate linear regression model, which included background factors, perceived psychosocial work climate and work environmental factors (motivation, leadership, employee responsibilities, efficacy, work ability and management committed to employee health) and work life balance, showed that psychosocial work climate (B= .48, 95% CI=.27 – .69) leadership, (B= .27, 95% CI=.05– .49), work ability (B= -.12, 95% CI= .03 – .21), motivation (B= -33, 95% CI= .14 – .51) and work life balance (B= -.34, 95% CI=-.57– -.12), were significantly associated with well-being at work and explained 40% of the variance (Adjusted R2=.40, p<.001). Results from the two-year follow up will be presented at the conference.ConclusionsResults showed that not only work environment factors are important predictors. To maintain ahealthy work place apromotion ofbalancebetween workand private life is needed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ericsson, Pernilla, et al.
(author)
-
Reliability testing of two ergonomic risk assessment tools
- 2012
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- INTRODUCTIONQuick Exposure Check (QEC¹) and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA²) are two ergonomic risk assessment tools that have been designed to be useful for ergonomists assessing musculoskeletal risk factors in upper extremities at workplaces.AIMThe aim was to describe the variation between and within ergonomists assessments using QEC and RULA, and to compare the two tools regarding within-observer agreement.SUBJECTS & METHODSTwenty ergonomists observed five different work tasks twice with three weeks in between, watching video clips. They made ergonomic risk assessments using both QEC and RULA.The observed work tasks were: Window replacement, nailing a wooden pallet, toilet cleaning, instrumentation in an operating theatre, and sorting post.For the statistical analyses, percent agreement and kappa value was used.RESULTSThere was a variation in assessments between the ergonomists in all positions and movements both when using QEC and RULA, except from assessing armposition when observing window replacement using QEC, where all ergonomists assessed the same position (figure 1).The ergonomists had higher percent agreement between observation one and two using QEC compared with RULA (table 1).CONCLUSIONThere was a variation when assessing positions and movements in different worktasks both between ergonomists and within the same ergonomist using both QEC and RULA. However the agreement between two observations within observers was higher for QEC.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Forsman, Mikael, et al.
(author)
-
Inter-ergonomist Reliability in Rating Risk Level - without any Specific Method - in Ten Video Recorded Work Tasks
- 2014
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- 1. IntroductionRecently, 30 observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures at work were evaluated through a literature review (Takala et al., 2010). It was found that several methods are insufficiently tested in terms of validity and reliability. In only in a few cases have estimates of the components of the methods been validated against technical measurements. Also comparisons between methods' resulting risk levels are rare. Swedish Work Environment Authority has recently increased the demands on ergonomic risk assessments. These assessments are usually made by ergonomists in occupational health services (OHS).This study is included in a larger on-going project, with the overall purpose to evaluate six observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures of repetitive work in respect of validity, reliability and usability, as well as provide information on which of the methods are best suited for practitioners in risk assessment of repetitive work. The methods' resulting risk levels are compared not only to each other, but also to ergonomists’ “own” risk estimates (i.e., done without any specific method). The specific aim of this sub-study was to investigate the inter-observer reliability of ergonomists’ own risk estimates.2. MethodsNine OHS-ergonomists, all with more than 5 years of experience of general ergonomic risk assessments, made risk assessments of 10 different video-recorded (2-6 minutes) work-tasks (supermarket work, meat cutting and packing, engine assembly, cleaning, post sorting and hairdressing). Video sequences of two or three camera angles were synchronized and showed together. For each work-task, the ergonomists were given data of the work task length (see Table 1), pause- and rests schedules, weights of handled goods, physical factors, and the employees own ratings of discomfort, work demands and own control.The ergonomist could pause the playback as needed, the maximum allocated time per work-task assessment was 20 minutes. The risk of musculoskeletal disorders and need for improvements was rated into green (no risk), yellow (investigate further), and red (immediate risk) categories. Ratings were done for 8 specific body regions: neck, lower back, right and left shoulders, -arms/elbows, and -wrists/hands), and for one over-all risk level.The agreement of the ratings (in percent), and Light’s multi-observer kappa (i.e. Cohen’s pairwise kappa averaged over all pairs; Light, 1971; Cohen, 1960) were calculated per body region and for the over-all risk assessment.3. ResultsFor the 720 (9 ergonomists, 8 body regions, 10 work tasks) risk assessments of the separate body regions, 37% were green, 44% yellow and 19% red. For over-all risk assessments (Table 1), 14% were green, 50% yellow and 36% red.Table 1. Work tasks, hours per work task per work day, and the ergonomists ratings of over risk As seen in Table 1, the consistency between the observers differed markedly. For three of the work tasks all three categories were represented, only in one task all ergonomists rated the over-all risk equally. The average agreement of the ratings were 48% regarding the body regions, and 57% regarding the over-all risk assessments, Light’s kappa was 0.18 and 0.30, respectively.4. DiscussionThe results showed fair inter-observer reliability according to Altman’s table for interpretation of kappa (kappa between 0.21 and 0.40; Altman, 1991). These kappa values will, in the major project, be compared to those of six systematic observation methods.5. ReferencesAltman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall.Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20(1):37–46.Light RJ. Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin. 1971;76(5):365–377.Takala EP et al. 2010. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand J Work E
|
|
| 7. |
- Forsman, Mikael, et al.
(author)
-
Reliability in twelve ergonomists’ three-category risk ratings in ten video recorded work tasks.
- 2015
-
In: Proceedings 19<sup>th</sup> Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Swedish Work Environment Authority has recently increased the demands on ergonomic risk assessments. These assessments are usually made by ergonomists in occupational health services (OHS). Although they are many observational methods that may be used (Takala, Pehkonen et al. 2010), the ergonomists often do risk assessment by sole observation, based on his/her own knowledge and experience, without the use of any specific method.This study is included in a larger on-going OBS project, with the overall purpose to evaluate six observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures of repetitive work in respect of validity, reliability and usability, as well as provide information on which of the methods are best suited for practitioners in risk assessment of repetitive work. The methods' resulting risk levels will be compared not only to each other, but also to the ergonomists’ “own” assessments (without any specific method) of the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders.The specific aim of this sub-study was to investigate the inter-observer reliability of ergonomists’ own risk assessments without any specific method
|
|
| 8. |
- Glimne, Susanne, et al.
(author)
-
Headaches in combination with visual ability, eye- and musculoskeletal strain in connection with visually demanding work tasks
- 2022
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Suboptimal visual ergonomics (i.e., the interaction between our vision, the light, the visual object, and the influence of other factors which impairs visibility) in work environment such as glare can cause headache in combination with eyestrain, visual ability, and musculoskeletal strain. Symptoms constituted to the syndrome of eyestrain has been well described among computer workers (see for example Han et al., 2013; Portello et al., 2012; Bhanderi et al., 2008; Mocci et al., 2001; Sanchez-Roman et al., 1996). However, research has not focused on investigating the presence of headaches associated with eye-related and musculoskeletal disorders among employees and visual related environmental factors.The purpose of presented research was to study the presence of headaches in combination with visual ability, eye- and musculoskeletal strain, and work ability in connection with visually demanding work. Trained assessors recruited study participants primarily from their regular clients in the OHS field. Evaluators were instructed to recruit participants with a variety of characteristics to ensure highly variable data, such as different work tasks, age, and gender. The participants mean age was 48.3 years (±10.3); 66% were women.A visual ergonomics risk assessment method (VERAM, Heiden et al. 2019; Zetterberg et al. 2017) was used to compile the participated workers subjective grading of headache, eye- and musculoskeletal strain using a questionnaire (n=430). At the same time, an evaluation of the visual environment was carried out, which established if there was a risk of glare associated with the implementation of work task (e.g., computer work and other related work such as industry, healthcare, and shipping industry). The frequency of headaches was divided into three categories; (1) no headache, (2) headache occasionally, and (3) headache a few times per week/almost every day. The measurements regarding evaluation of the visual environment used a photometer, an instrument which was available and that the assessors could use, usually a Hagner ScreenMaster or Hagner S1 / S2 / S3.About 65% of the workers reported headaches occasionally, a few times/week or almost every day. Among the workers with headaches reported about 29% of them that they experienced the headaches a few times/week or almost every day.Out of the workers with headaches reported 37% a severity of the headaches of more than 3 (on a scale of 1-10) and 5 % reported a severity of more than 6. About 40% of the workers also stated that the headaches affected their working ability. The headaches were mainly located around the eyes, forehead, or temples (70%) and came in the afternoon (69%). About 75% of the workers also reported that the headache disappeared or were reduced when they were off work for one night or over the weekend. The data collection showed that visual- related symptoms increased the higher the estimated headaches was.The musculoskeletal strain increased when the headache increased. When workers reported a high frequency of headaches 95% of them reported neck strain, 86% shoulder strain, 73% upper back strain, and 61% were reported arm strain.Moreover, only 8.2% of the workers rated their visual ability as bad or very bad, but at the same time, about 60% reported dim vision, 14% diplopia, and 59% problems changing focus at some time.Dividing the data into workers with experienced or unexperienced headaches this study has shown that there was a significant presence of headaches in combination with visual related symptoms regarding experienced photophobia (p=0.011), eye pain (p=0.015), diplopia (p=0.029), and arm strain (p=0.006). Further, the statistical analysis showed that there was a tendency of combination regarding headaches and visual ability (p=0.070).Dividing the data into workers with experienced or unexperienced headaches, our study showed that the frequency of headache increased due to high luminance levels within the visual field (p=0.044).This study concludes presence of headaches in combination with eye- and musculoskeletal strain performing work task such as computer work. Further, the presence of headaches is due to visual ability induced by high luminance levels within the visual field.
|
|
| 9. |
- Gustafsson, Susanne, et al.
(author)
-
Managerial masculinity : an issue for wellbeing at work. : Reflections on the borderline between middle level management and fathering, using life-history method.
- 2016
-
In: Scientific Programme.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ObjectivesIn this paper we reflect on potential linkages within and between masculinity, management and wellbeing. The aim is to reveal the tensions in which technocratic managerial masculinity faces difficulties when combined with fathering and its consequences for wellbeing, both on individual- and family level.MethodsAudio-recorded life-history interviews were conducted with employees, at three companies in Sweden during spring 2014. One of them was with a former manager, also a father, which is the subject of this paper. The tran-scribed interview formed the basis of an individual case study that was interpretive analyzed using a gender theoretic approach.ResultsManagerial masculinity is revealed as obstacles such as hegemonic expectations of not being good enough which is emerging in contradictive situations between hospital visits and office deadlines. To cope with hege-monic masculinity displaced in a contradictive cornerstone the embodiment of thoughts, ideas and experien-ces became transformed into a wish to quit the leadership assignment, a process in which support from colle-agues, relatives and friends were recognized as important. The decision to quit was immediately followed by a relief, but over time became mixed-up with sorrowful feelings of lack. Looking back at the event makes a shift in value-system prominent: The informant’s self-understanding has been transformed from prioritizing level of sa-lary and the value of money to instead emphasize broader values in life expressed in terms of family wellbeing.ConclusionThrough the tensions that emerge from ‘changing faces of masculinity’ the capacity to navigate life is reshaped. As long as hegemonic masculinity is taken for granted it is difficult to challenge and question it. But when ideas, experiences and feelings are transformed from a personal- to a cultural level they become possible to share with others: a process of exchange through which alternative ways of doing are crystallized. Personal experi-ences are thus transformed into collective possessions and given new meanings. We interpret the exchange of thoughts and ideas as expression of supportive interaction, shown to prompt new kinds of enactment in personal lives – thus a potential for wellbeing at work
|
|
| 10. |
- Gustafsson, Susanne, et al.
(author)
-
Rethinking potential connection between gender, work- and family life and how to link the emerging reasoning to well-being
- 2015
-
In: Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- How women and men negotiate roles and relationships is crucial for having the potential to combine paid work with other parts of their life. How women and men actually do this can be understood as constrained by what women and men are expected to do. Earlier research on organizational working patterns has revealed links between such constraints and gender relations (Acker, 1990). ”Processes of transformation” (Gustafsson, 2007) is a theoretical concept that will be used here in this paper to explore a potential connection between working life and family life, as varying and gendered. How these two spheres of life are situationally connected will have implications for well-being. It is this theoretical reasoning that will be illustrated in this paper, how it works in practice, through the use of empirical examples from an ongoing larger study on work and health.In mainstream literature, the term “work–life balance” is frequently used, often in very simplified ways, concealing underlying dynamism and complexity. “Women” as a group and “men” as a group are often seen as fixed, unproblematic gender categories, classifying bodies and therewith define gender. It is therefore not surprising that gender categoricalism can become the basis in occupational health. If categorical thinking on gender is parked on the top of biological difference, gender relations and “roles” correspond with natural differences and thus serve to mask how underlying gender relations, contradictive and ambivalent, produce and reproduce men’s privileged position simultaneously with women’s subordination (Connell, 1987). Using categorical thinking on gender risk to become contradictive, since expected change in health promotion programs at work may fail.To understand how a balance can be struck between work and family-life obligations, contradictions and ambivalences need to be made visible and gender variations as well as nuances have to be sought for. We herewith call for a re-thinking of how the connection between gender, work, family and well-being can be seen and practiced through occupational health policy. An analytical tool able to facilitate this re-thinking in occupational health practices will be suggested in this paper. We are convinced that it is this kind of concepts that are needed right now in order to mobilize an acceleration of ongoing gender transformation that would contribute to improve health and well-being, both in work and family spheres of life.This paper is part of a comprehensive intervention study on occupational health and well-being among blue- and white-collar workers, both women and men, in three companies in Sweden. In the baseline questionnaire, the employees mentioned that work–life balance is most significant for them as they strive to achieve well-being and health. This is the motivation for a study whose overall purpose is to contribute to a better understanding of potential linkages between gender, work and family, and well-being. The aim of this paper is threefold. First, it focuses on how employed women and men “do gender” when combining earning and caring activities and looks at the contributions or limitations or both. Second, it considers how the gender regime can be seen as providing a context for various gender-related limitations and opportunities, and differences and similarities between the employed women and men in three companies in Sweden. Third, it illuminates an alternative approach for combining gender, work, family and well-being.
|
|
