1. Safety, Health and Work Environment – a Study of Employees in the Norwegian Offshore Oil & Gas Industry Anne Mette Bjerkan PhD Student Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture University of Oslo E-mail: a.m.bjerkan@tik.uio.noa.m.bjerkan@tik.uio.no

2. Study Objectives 1) Examine associations between self-reported health, work environment, perceived risk and work safety climate 2) Examine changes with regard to perception of work factors and self-reported health in two different samples collected in 2001 and 2003

3. Theoretical Background Work environment Perceived risk Safety Health - Physical conditions E.g. noise, lighting conditions, ergonomic design of the workplace (Parkes, 1999) - Psychosocial conditions E.g. job demands, control etc. -Organization of work Management etc. (Mearns & Flin, 1996) - The subjective assessment of risk influenced - Stress - Health - Well-being - From a study Of Norwegian Offshore Oil employees (Rundmo, 1992) - The employee's perception of the safety work within an organization has in previous studies been linked to job stress and perceived risk at work (Cree & Kelloway, 1997) - Musculoskeletal diseases - Cardiovascular disorders - Psychological complaints - General health status

4. Methodological Background Cross sectional survey design (2001 & 2003) 2001:Questionnaire distributed to nurses on selected offshore oil installations 2003:Questionnaire distributed to all heliports which shuttle employees to the Norwegian Continental Shelf Population: –“All individuals employed on Norwegian offshore installations” Sample: –Employees at work in a given time-period –Different installations, and different companies operating on the NCS

5. Questionnaire Describe the employees perception of health, environment and safety (HES) within the industry Describe what contributes to the perception of HES work

6. Sample 2001 –N=3310 –Response rate: 49.1 % –Mostly male (90.5 %, N=2994) –Age, majority between 31 and 50 (65.4%, N= 2167) 2003 –N=8567 –Response rate: 45.8 % –Mostly male (90.0 %, N=7741) –Age, majority between 31 and 50 (64.6 %, N= 5542)

7. Data Analyses Exploratory factor analyses –Chronbach’s alpha Confirmatory factor analyses MANOVA –Examine changes between 2001 and 2003 –Age as a covariate Linear structural equation modelling (LISREL) –MIMIC modelling (analysing subgroup effects)

8. Results / Dimensions Self-reported health –Six symptoms (e.g. impaired hearing, musculoskeletal problems) Perceived limitations in daily activities while offshore –Seven items (e.g. walking in stairs and ladders ) Perceived safety at work –Four dimensions, four single items (e.g. communication about safety ) Perceived risk –Two dimensions (controllable and uncontrollable sources of risk) Work environment –Three dimension (e.g. the physical and psychosocial work environment) Age –Three contrasts

9. Estimated Model – 2001 Method of estimation: WLS Χ 2 =7685.167, d.f.=358, RMSEA=0.078, GFI=0.959, CFI=0.921, NNFI=0.910 Accounted for 13.9% of the variance in self-reported health status (R2=0.139) Age a significant contributor: –Employees between 31-40 experienced less symptoms of self reported ill-health Self-reported health explained a large amount of the variance in perceived limitations in daily activities while offshore (R2=0.572).

10. Accounted for 11 % of the variance in self-reported health symptoms (R2= 0.11) Age contributed significantly to the perception of symptoms of ill-health. –31-40 year olds experience less symptoms of ill-health Self-reported health accounted for a large proportion of the respondents’ perceived limitations in daily activities offshore (β=-0.84). Estimated Model – 2003 Method of estimation: WLS, χ 2 =20232.851, d.f.=358, RMSEA=0.080, GFI=0.951, CFI=0.877, NNFI=0.859

11. Self-reported Health Year group –2003: slightly better perceived general health status –2003: less limitations in daily activities due to health status Age group –Older employees less satisfied with general health status –Older employees more symptoms of ill-health –Older employees: More limitations in daily activities due to ill-health

12. Safety, Risk and the Working Environment Year group –2003 employees were more satisfied with the safety climate, perceived less risk and evaluated the work environment more favourably Age group –Older employees more satisfied with the perceived safety climate and the work environment –Younger employees perceived more dangers associated with work

13. Summary A small percentage of the variance in self-reported health status was accounted for by perceived safety climate, perceived risk and perception of the working environment (between 10 and 20 percent) Strong relationship between self-reported health symptoms and perceived limitations in daily activities while offshore Age appeared to be the strongest predictor for self-reported health of the variables included Differences between the groups were identified with regard to: Health –2003 sample more satisfied Perception of safety, risk and the work environment –Overall the 2003 employees appeared to be more satisfied with the before-mentioned aspects.

14. Conclusions –Safety climate, risk perception and work environment contribute significantly to the explained variance in health, although this contribution is modest in both samples –Physical aspects of the working situation and other factors need to be included to further understand what contributes to ill-health among Norwegian offshore employees –People who are absent from work during the time of the study, should also be included in order to obtain a more complete picture