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

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

© 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 hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

% %

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

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

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

% 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

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

% 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

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

_____________________________________________________________ _______

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

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

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98

Published by the Health and Safety Executive 06/06

RR 376