Do regulatory tools instigate measures to prevent work-related psychosocial and ergonomic risk factors? A process evaluation of a Labour inspection authority trial in the Norwegian home-care services.

OBJECTIVE: There is a research gap regarding the way managers and employee representatives respond to Labour Authority interventions targeting work-related psychosocial and ergonomic risk factors. The present study aimed to determine if (I) labour inspections and (II) guidance-through-workshops led by inspectors were perceived by the target audience as equally useful and educational; and to determine if utility and enhanced knowledge were associated with the implementation of measures to prevent work-related risk factors. Finally, it aimed to determine if the managers in the intervention groups to a greater extent than the controls reported implementing such measures. RESULTS: Managers and employee representatives in both intervention groups reported a high level of perceived utility as well as a high level of enhanced knowledge. Both utility (p < 0.05) and enhanced knowledge (p < 0.05) were significantly associated with the implementation of, or plans to soon implement, measures to improve working conditions. When compared to controls, implemented measures, or plans to implement measures, were reported significantly more frequently by managers in the inspection group (p < 0.05). Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03855163 Registered on February 26, 2019.

Psychological, social, and mechanical work exposures and disability retirement: a prospective registry study.

BACKGROUND: Relations between several occupational psychological and social factors and disability retirement remain largely unexplored. Knowledge of which specific aspects of the work environment that affect risk of disability is a prerequisite for the success of organizational interventions aiming to prevent premature work force exit. The objective of the present study was to determine contributions to registered disability retirement by a broad range of psychological and social work exposures while taking into account effects of mechanical exposure. METHODS: Written consent was obtained from 13 012 employees (96 organizations) representing a wide range of occupations, to link their survey responses to data from the Norwegian national registry of disability compensation. Median follow-up time was 5.8 years. To determine effects of self-reported work exposures on risk of disability retirement hazard ratios (HR) and 99% confidence intervals (99% CI) were calculated with Cox regression analysis. Effects of sex, age group, skill level, sickness absence in the last three years, and work exposures estimated to be confounders were accounted for. Post hoc stratification by sex was conducted to explore if identified predictors affected risk of disability retirement differently in men compared to women. RESULTS: Contributors to higher risk of disability retirement were "role conflict" (high level HR 1.55 99% CI 1.07 to 2.24) and "physical workload" (high level HR 1.93 99% CI 1.39 to 2.68). Contributors to lower risk of disability retirement were "positive challenge" (high level HR 0.56 99% CI 0.34 to 0.93), "fair leadership" (high level HR 0.56 99% CI 0.39 to 0.81), and "control over work intensity" (high level HR 0.62, 99% CI 0.47 to 0.82). Direction of effects was not dependent on sex in any of the five identified predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Several specific psychological and social work factors are independent contributors to risk of disability retirement. In order to prevent premature work force exit workplace interventions should consider targeting the predictors identified by the present study.

Contribution of psychological, social, and mechanical work exposures to low work ability: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the contribution of specific psychological, social, and mechanical work exposures to the self-reported low level of work ability. METHODS: Employees from 48 organizations were surveyed over a 2-year period (n = 3779). Changes in 16 work exposures and 3 work ability measures-the work ability index score, perceived current, and future work ability-were tested with Spearman rank correlations. Binary logistic regressions were run to determine contribution of work exposures to low work ability. RESULTS: Role conflict, human resource primacy, and positive challenge were the most consistent predictors of low work ability across test designs. Role clarity and fair leadership were less consistent but prominent predictors. Mechanical exposures were not predictive. CONCLUSIONS: To protect employee work ability, work place interventions would benefit from focusing on reducing role conflicts and on promoting positive challenges and human resource primacy.