hig.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 22 of 22
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    et al.
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Predictors of Well-being at work2016In: Scientific Programme: Wellbeing at Work 2016, 2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The concept of healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity. Conditions in today’s working life make new approaches necessary in order to limit negative health effects of work and to enhance wellbeing and health at work. About 24 % of the working population in Sweden report to have had work-related disorders during the last twelve months. In order to achieve a sustainable working life it is likely that strategies and actions from different and new angles are needed.ObjectivesThe present study is a part of a larger study (the GodA –study; a Swedish acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) and aims to investigate how work environment factors, work ability, work motivation, work and life balance predict well-being at work.

    Methods

    The GodA study is a 2-year follow up study in Sweden with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers. One of the companies serves as “intervention-company”, the other two as controls. A baseline questionnaire was sent out 2013 and the results from the survey were reported back to the companies, which have been processing their results. In spring 2015 a follow up survey has been administered. Data have been analysed with univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses.

    Results

    A baseline multivariate linear regression model, which included background factors, perceived psychosocial work climate and work environmental factors (motivation, leadership, employee responsibilities, efficacy, work ability and management committed to employee health) and work life balance, showed that psychosocial work climate (B= .48, 95% CI=.27 – .69) leadership, (B= .27, 95% CI=.05– .49), work ability (B= -.12, 95% CI= .03 – .21), motivation (B= -33, 95% CI= .14 – .51) and work life balance (B= -.34, 95% CI=-.57– -.12), were signifi-cantly associated with well-being at work and explained 40% of the variance (Adjusted R2=.40, p<.001).

    Conclusions

    Results showed that not only work environment factors are important predictors. To maintain a healthy work place a promotion of balance between work and private life is needed.

  • 2.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    et al.
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science.
    Predictors of well-being at work2015Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Background

    The concept of healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity. Conditions in today’s working life make new approaches necessary in order to limit negative health effects of work and to enhance wellbeing and health at work. About 24 % of the working population in Sweden report to have had work-related disorders during the last twelve months. In order to achieve a sustainable working life it is likely that strategies and actions from different and new angles are needed.

    The present study is a part of a larger study (the GodA –study; a Swedish acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) and aims to investigate how work environment factors, work ability, work motivation, work and life balance predict well-being at work.

    Methods

    The GodA study is a 2-year follow up study in Sweden with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers. One of the companies serves as “intervention-company”, the other two as controls. A baseline questionnaire was sent out 2013 and the results from the survey were reported back to the companies, which have been processing their results. In spring 2015 a follow up survey has been administered. Data from the baseline measurements have been analysed with univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses.

    Results

    A baseline multivariate linear regression model, which included background factors, perceived psychosocial work climate and work environmental factors (motivation, leadership, employee responsibilities, efficacy, work ability and management committed to employee health) and work life balance, showed that psychosocial work climate (B= .48, 95% CI=.27 – .69) leadership, (B= .27, 95% CI=.05– .49), work ability  (B= -.12, 95% CI= .03 – .21), motivation (B= -33, 95% CI= .14 – .51) and work life balance (B= -.34, 95% CI=-.57– -.12), were significantly associated with well-being at work and explained 40% of the variance  (Adjusted R2=.40, p<.001). Results from the two-year follow up will be presented at the conference.

    Conclusions

    Results showed that not only work environment factors are important predictors. To maintain ahealthy work place apromotion ofbalancebetween workand private life is needed.

  • 3.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Employees' and managers' perception of a healthy workplace - interviews from three medium-sized companies2015In: Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In a recent review by van der Noordt et al. (2014), aimed at systematically summarize the literature on the health effects of employment, strong evidence was found for a protective effect of employment as such on depression and general mental health. Another review by Lindberg & Vingård (2012), aimed at systematically review the scientific literature and search for indicators of healthy working environments, defined as working environments that not just have a lack of detrimental factors at work but also yield a positive return in the form of rich job content, job satisfaction, social participation and personal development (Swedish Work Environment Authority 2010). The authors found 23 studies that either investigated employee´s views of what constitute a healthy workplace or were guidelines for how to create such a workplace. The most pronounced factors, considered as important for a healthy workplace were: collaboration/teamwork; growth and development of the individual; recognition; employee involvement; positive, accessible and fair leadership; autonomy and empowerment; appropriate staffing; skilled communication; and safe physical work (Lindberg and Vingård 2012).

    The knowledge in the field is still rather vague concerning what creates, promotes and sustains health and wellbeing at work among managers and employees and what factors might be the most important. In order to take action we need to further explore and understand these underlying factors, the “healthy work factors”. The aim of this study was therefore to explore how a sample of Swedish blue- and white collar workers describe healthy factors at work as well as understand the concept of wellbeing at work.

  • 4.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    God arbetsmiljö och välbefinnande på arbetet – en intervjustudie på tre medelstora företag2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    God arbetsmiljö och välbefinnande på arbetet: en intervjustudie på tre medelstora företag2013In: Arbetslivets föränderlighet: Individ-, organisations- och metodperspektiv / [ed] Sverke, Magnus, Stockholms universitets förlag, 2013, p. 17-17Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [sv]

    Introduktion

    Under de senaste decennierna har ett promotivt perspektiv vidgat arbetsmiljödiskursen i Sverige och internationellt. Främjande faktorer antas kunna bidra till såväl individers prestation, hälsa och välbefinnande, som till företags konkurrenskraft och lönsamhet. Den här studien har för avsikt att ur ett arbetstagarperspektiv stärka kunskapen om hälsofrämjande faktorer i arbetslivet.

     

    Syfte

    Syftet med studien var att undersöka hur en grupp svenska arbetstagare tolkar och beskriver begreppet god arbetsmiljö, vad de anser ger välbefinnande på arbetet samt hur de upplever sin egen arbetsmiljö.

     

    Metod

    På tre medelstora energiföretag genomfördes fokusgrupper med medarbetarna och individuella intervjuer med chefer. Därutöver fick deltagarna svara på en kort enkät rörande demografiska data. Rekrytering till fokusgrupperna gjordes i samarbete med cheferna för de avdelningar forskarna utsett genom strategiskt urval.  Cheferna ombads att rekrytera sex fokusgruppsdeltagare med, så långt det var möjligt, olika arbetsfunktion, kön, ålder, anställningslängd och etniskt ursprung. Tre huvudteman diskuterades vid intervjuerna: 1. Vad är en god arbetsmiljö? 2. Vad ger välbefinnande på arbetet? och 3. Upplevelser av den egna arbetsmiljön. Individual- och fokusgruppsintervjuerna utfördes av försteförfattaren, vid fokusgrupperna assisterad av andreförfattaren med uppgift att ta anteckningar och ställa kompletterande frågor.

     

    Resultat

    Efter 11 fokusgrupper med 3-6 medarbetare per grupp och 10 individualintervjuer med chefer ansågs datamättnad uppnådd. Demografiska data visade att deltagarna (n=62) till 84 % bestod av män, att 58 % fanns i åldersspannet 31-49 år och att 42 % hade en anställningstid av 11 år eller mer. Vid intervjuerna beskrevs visserligen fysiska faktorer (t.ex. lokaler och utrustning) som en fundamental grund i arbetsmiljön, men att psykosociala faktorer (t.ex. kamratskap och arbetsglädje) och organisatoriska faktorer (t.ex. kommunikation, delaktighet och ledarskap) var av större vikt för att skapa en god arbetsmiljö och välbefinnande på arbetet. Ett gott kamratskap var den faktor som, i de flesta fokusgrupper, spontant nämndes först som beskrivning av en god arbetsmiljö. Den egna arbetsmiljön upplevdes generellt som god, dock med en varierande grad av förbättringsbehov.

     

    Slutsatser

    En god arbetsmiljö antas inneha en stor potential för både individer och företag. Den här studien indikerar att psykosociala och organisatoriska faktorer är av stor vikt för att skapa en god arbetsmiljö. Resultatet kan fungera vägledande i företags strävan mot en hälsofrämjande arbetsplats samt i framtida arbetsmiljöforskning.

  • 6.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Utvärdering av Ergonomi på rätt sätt - såhär gör du2011Report (Other academic)
  • 7.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Lindberg, Per
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Berntson, Erik
    Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Wellbeing at work and the development of a questionnaire2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background. Improved employee wellbeing has been suggested to contribute to individual motivation and health, as well as to corporate competitiveness (Grawitch et al, 2006). However, in order to reach these potential benefits, we need to better understand the underlying factors that create wellbeing at work and healthy work environments.

    Aim. The aim of the study is to explore how a sample of Swedish blue- and white collar workers interprets the concepts of healthy work environments and workplace wellbeing, as a basis for the development of a questionnaire. In addition, a second aim is to investigate the psychometric properties of the subsequent questionnaire.

    Method. Interviews focusing on healthy work environments and workplace wellbeing were undertaken with managers and employees (n=62) at three medium-sized companies. All interviews were verbatim transcribed and analyzed in order to identify factors reported as important for healthy work environments and workplace wellbeing. The interview findings, together with factors identified in a systematic review about indicators of healthy work environments (Lindberg & Vingård, 2012) were used to develop items for a questionnaire aimed at measuring underlying factors for workplace wellbeing. The questionnaire, including newly constructed “workplace wellbeing items” as well as well-established questions for employee health, working conditions, and organizational factors was distributed to all employees at the three companies, where 74 % (n=303) responded. A retest survey was distributed to a subsample of the participants. 86 % (n=107) responded. 

    Preliminary results. The interview data suggested a broad spectrum of factors to be significant for establishing healthy work environments and workplace wellbeing. These factors represented six categories: Psychosocial climate; Physical working conditions; Communication; Management; Autonomy & Competence; and Values. The survey data showed that the single most important statement for workplace wellbeing was “that work- and family life can be combined in a good way”. Further psychometric properties, including reliability and factor analysis, are being conducted and will be presented at the conference.

    Conclusion. A healthy work environment is believed to hold great potential for both individuals and companies. With a mixed method approach this study test a set of questions measuring factors for a healthy work environment and wellbeing at work.

     

    References

    Grawitch MJ, Gottschalk M, Munz DC. (2006)The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal,58(3):129-47

    Lindberg P & Vingård E. (2012). Indicators of healthy work environments – a systematic review. Work, 41(0), 3032-3038.

  • 8.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Nordlöf, Hasse
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Wijk, Katarina
    Samhällsmedicin Gävleborg, Landstinget i Gävleborg.
    Företagsledares uppfattningar om arbetsmiljöprioritering och dess samband med framgång2012In: Makt, Myter och Motstridigheter: Utmaningar i dagens arbetsliv, Karlstad: Karlstad Universitet , 2012, p. 19-19Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The management and prioritization of the work environment is crucial to the achievement of any potential benefits resulting from a good work environment. Managers from successful, micro- or small-sized companies responded to a questionnaire in which they rated the prioritization of seven work environment areas and to what extent they perceived that a relationship exists between a good work environment and corporate success. The results showed that Communication & Interaction was perceived as the highest prioritized area and that the mangers perceived a relationship between a good work environment and corporate success.

  • 9.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Nordlöf, Hasse
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Wijk, Katarina
    Samhällsmedicin Gävleborg, Landstinget i Gävleborg.
    Manager perceptions of work environment prioritization and its relation to success2012In: Proceedings NES2012: Ergonomics for sustainability and growth / [ed] Ann-Beth Antonsson, Göran M Hägg, Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Technology and Health, Division of Ergonomics , 2012Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The management and prioritization of the work environment is crucial to the achievement of any potential benefits resulting from a good work environment. Managers from successful, micro- or small-sized companies responded to a questionnaire in which they rated the prioritization of seven work environment areas, ranked six company interests, and rated to what extent they perceived that a relationship exists between a good work environment and corporate success. The results showed that Communication & Interaction was perceived as the highest prioritized area, that Profitability was the highest ranked company interest, and that the mangers perceived a relationship between a good work environment and corporate success.

  • 10.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Wijk, Katarina
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Bänziger, Tanja
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    A description of work environment management in succesful companies2011In: Wellbeing and Innovations Through Ergonomics: Proceedings of NES2011, September 18-21, 2011, Oulu, Finland / [ed] Juha Lindfors, Merja Savolainen & Seppo Väyrynen, Nordic Ergonomics Society , 2011, p. 460-465Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A good work environment can support companies' competitiveness, but many managers mostly associate ergonomics with occupational health and safety. In the process of managing the work environment and creating a good working environment, company managers have a central role. This article investigated managers' own descriptions of the work environment management (WEM). The study group consisted of successful companies (n=142) in a county of Sweden. The managers' descriptions were categorised into nine categories. The most frequently described category was “PhysicalFactors at work”, followed by “Manuals and Standardisation”, and “EmployeeInvolvement and Interaction”.

  • 11.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science.
    The birth, rise and success (or fall?) of an intervention project: GodA – a project set up to test a model of the prerequisites for a healthy workplace2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The birth, rise and success (or fall?) of an intervention project.

    GodA – a project set up to test a model of the prerequisites for a healthy workplace.

    ("GodA" is a Swedish acronym for "Good work environment and healthy workplace")

    Per Lindberg, symposia leader, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, University of Gävle, per.lindberg@hig.se, +46 26 64 87 59

    Ingrid Anderzén, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, ingrid.anderzen@pubcare.uu.se, + 46 703 18 90 09

    Thomas Karlsson, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, University of Gävle, thomas.karlsson@hig.se, + 46 26 64 81 01

    Susanne Gustafsson, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, University of Gävle, susanne.gustafsson@hig.se, + 46 26 64 81 10

    Annika Strömberg, Department of Social Work and Psychology, University of Gävle, annika.stromberg@hig.se, + 46 26 64 86 53

     With the ongoing GodA-project as a starting point, the main purpose of this symposium is to discuss methodological aspects of intervention research.

    The GodA-project - an introduction and some baseline results, presented by P. Lindberg

    Conditions in today’s working life make new approaches necessary in order to limit negative health effects of working life and to enhance wellbeing and health at work. Despite rather progressive legislation, a century of labour inspections, and the efforts of thousands of occupational health personnel, still around 20% of the Swedish workforce report to have had work-related disorders other than accidents during the last year (1). Even if this "elimination approach" partly has succeeded it´s obvious that it is insufficient or inadequate for a working life where key issues for progress are motivation, cooperation and creativity (2). In order to achieve a sustainable working life, not the least to coop with issues related to the ageing population in the developed countries, it is likely that strategies and actions from different and new angles are needed.

    Healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity(3). It is noteworthy that the notion healthy workplace is not a substitute for good work environment it is a consequence. Different models, e.g. the PATH-model by Grawitch et al.(4) shows a synthesis of earlier research in a number of different disciplines and frames how a healthy workplace with wellbeing for the individual and organizational improvements can be achieved. Five general categories of healthy workplace practices were identified in the literature: work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, recognition, and employee involvement. Previous research also suggests that the link between these practices and employee and organizational outcomes is contingent on the effectiveness of communication within the organization and the alignment of workplace practices with the organizational context.

    The GodA-project aims at investigating if work place strategies in line with the PATH-model lead to better health and wellbeing among the employees as well as organizational improvements.

    The GodA project is a 2 year follow up study with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers within the energy sector. One of the companies serves as "intervention company", the other two as controls. The project started out with a pre-project, by means of focus groups and individual interviews, in 2012 in order to find out how employees and managers in the three companies describe the concept of a healthy work environment, what they consider to create well-being at work, and how they perceive their own work environment:

    What factors are important for well-being at work? presented by T. Karlsson

    In 2013 a baseline questionnaire where was sent out including items a) based on the results from the pre-study, and b) well-established questions and indices on health and work environment. The results from the survey have been reported back to the companies, which now are processing their results. Research question to be presented and discussed at the symposium:

    Is there a balance between factors of importance for wellbeing at work and the extent to which they are present at the workplace? presented by P. Lindberg.

    Is there a correlation between psychosocial work climate indicators and work-related well-

    The PATH-model emphasizes internal communication as critical in establishing a healthy workplace. As the baseline results show that the communication is not very well developed, this is the primary target for our intervention. We will demonstrate a method for how the survey data are presented back to the intervention company and how they are going to work with the results to improve their work environment, and at the same time enhance communication skills.

    After our presentation we invite the audience to discuss both the GodA-study and more general methodological issues when conducting intervention-studies, e.g:

    - When is a company ready (mature) to take part in research activities?

    - What are the pitfalls in workplace intervention studies?

    - To what degree can the researchers interact at the workplace and still be objective?

    - What is the value of focusing on the items that the employees responded to in the survey?

    References

    1. Swedish Work Environment Authority. Work -related disorders 2010 - Arbetsmiljöstatistisk Rapport 2010:4. Stockholm: Swedish Work Environment Authority. & Statistics Sweden 2010.

    2. Aronsson G, Gustafsson K, Hakanen J. On the development of a positive work-life psychology. In: Christensen M, editor. Validation and test of central concepts in positive work and organizatinal psychology The second report from the Nordic project 'Positive factors at work'. TemaNord 2009:564. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2009. p. 93-4.

    3. Sauter S, Lim S, Murphy L. Organizational health: A new paradigm for occupational stress research at NIOSH. Japanese Journal of Occupational Mental Health. 1996;4:248-54.

    4. Grawitch MJ, Gottschalk M, Munz DC. The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal. 2006;58(3):129-47.

  • 12.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, CBF. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    The process of work environmental changes in manufacturing companies2012Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Introduction

    For survival reasons, the process of change is ever-present in companies. If well conducted it can create commitment, new knowledge and skills as well as meet workers need for development. To succeed it is crucial to understand how changes come about.

     

    Objectives

    The aim of this study was to investigate how changes, especially improvements of work environment issues, within manufacturing companies are initiated, processed and implemented.

     

    Methods

    Twelve managers in charge of work environment issues, representing twelve randomly selected small, medium and large manufacturing companies within the wood-, paper-, metal-, and steel sectors in central Sweden were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed.

     

    Results

     The managers described work environmental changes as a continuous process of development, central for the company’s competitiveness. Economic incentives were the prime driving force for change. The organisational structure was considered as a key factor for initiating and implementing changes, and it was described how hierarchical structures had been transformed into more self-managing structures where the individuals, as well as the group, now had extended responsibilities.

     As internal driving forces for change the managers described how many ideas came from the employees, and that informal communication was a key concept in order to take advantage of the employees’ ideas and creativity. External driving forces were rather customer requirements like quality- and environmental certifications than legislative requirements.

    Common obstacles during the process of change were issues of economy, poor communication, employee resistance and inactive management.  

    The managers regarded the evaluation of implemented changes, in general, as poor and mainly concentrated on obvious economical issues. Reasons for this were time constraints, and that customer matters always were prioritized over internal processes.

     

    Conclusions

    In order for consultants, authorities or researchers to address change and development at companies it is necessary to understand how these organisations perceive, think and act regarding these matters. The present study suggests that possible gateways can be economy, employee health, leadership, employee involvement and participation, and evaluation routines.

  • 13.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Nordlöf, Hasse
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Engström, Veronica
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.
    Vingård, Eva
    Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Factors at work promoting mental health and wellbeing - a systematic litterature review2017Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Introduction

    There is strong evidence that work itself, despite its risks, reduces the risk of depression and improves mental health (Waddell & Burton, 2006; van der Noordt, IJzelenberg, Droomers, & Proper, 2014). Mental health, like mental illness, is a vaguely defined concept. Mental health is a non-contextual concept which can be defined as absence of mental illness and with the opportunity to develop and flourish with high levels of emotional, psychological and social well-being (Keyes, 2005). The concept of wellbeing at work is inclusive. It relates to the physical environment, work-related risks, organization of work and tasks, relationships with colleagues, personal health and work ability and even family-related stress (Suomaa Leo, Yrjänheikki Erkki, Savolainen Heikki, & Hannu, 2011). It can also be seen as an important determinant of productivity at the individual, corporate and community levels (Schulte & Vainio, 2010).

    "Healthy factors" for mental health in the workplace are factors and circumstances at work that may have a preventive and/or promotional effect on mental health and wellbeing of the workers. These factors can serve as resources (buffers) against negative consequences of various risks at work, but they may also be factors that, by themselves, create positive health benefits for the individual and the workplace.

    The large numbers of work-related mental unhealthy in the western world (not the least in Sweden), call for actions in improving working conditions, but which are the important determinants of positive mental health and wellbeing at work to be influenced?  A review of indicators for healthy workplaces has recently been performed (Lindberg & Vingård, 2012), but we have not found any comprehensive review explicitly concerning positive mental health at work. Hence, the aim of this study was to review current knowledge concerning determinants for mental health and wellbeing at work.

    Method

    Two comprehensive literature searches were conducted in nine scientific databases, EBSCO (includes Academic Search Elite, Cinahl, PsycINFO och PsycARTICLES), Emerald, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, for relevant articles written in English, German or the Scandinavian languages. The first search, covering 2000-2014, was done for a Swedish government report (Lindberg & Karlsson, 2015). The second search, covering 2014 - June 2016, updated the previous data for the purpose of a scientific publication. Exclusion of articles was made stepwise by title, abstract and full text. The quality of included articles was assessed by acknowledged guidelines (STROBE Statement) and done separately by two researchers. The combined results are being analysed and will be presented in Montreal.

    Search terms were: work OR workplace OR "healthy workplace" OR "healthy work" OR "healthy work* environment" OR "good work* environment" AND "depressive disorder" OR depression OR "behavioral symptoms" OR "anxiety disorders" OR "stress, psychological" OR "common mental disorders" OR "mental health" OR "sustainable mental health” OR "mental wellbeing" OR "mental well-being" OR "job wellbeing" OR "job well-being" OR "positive mental health" OR "good mental health" OR "positive mental wellbeing" OR "positive mental well-being" AND prevention OR promotion.

    Results

    According to preliminary analyses 5378 unique publications were found, of these 30 review-, cohort-, cross sectional-, and qualitative studies are included.

    In the included studies 25 individual or categories of related factors promoting positive mental health and wellbeing at work were identified. Below is a list of the twelve most frequently researched factors listed in order of descending frequency.

    • Style of  leadership
    • Empowerment; Autonomy; Control at work; Participation
    • Possibilities for own development
    • Positive work climate
    • Social  support from supervisor
    • Communication supervisor-employee
    • Clear goals
    • Appreciation from supervisors, colleagues, customers
    • Work time control; Enough time
    • Effort-reward balance
    • Intellectually stimulating
    • Job security

     As seen above the most frequently investigated factor was the impact of leadership on mental health. It was found that “good leadership”, i.e. fair, supportive and empowering, gave positive health changes and increased well-being, that increased quality of a staff-oriented leadership reduced sickness absence in the company and that transformational leadership increased psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction among workers.

    Conclusion

    Independent of study design leadership was the most scrutinized factor. Apart from possibly being a research trend (?), this may be interpreted as an understanding of both its explicit influence on the well-being of the employees, and its implicit influence by having the authority to facilitate communication, empowerment, control, support, respect, work content, feedback, etc.

    Practical implications

    Working conditions arise in the interaction between the individual and the organization, but creating working conditions that promote mental health cannot be put on the individual. It must be organized in the workplace for the employees in that special context, whereby the leadership seems to be paramount for the promotion of mental health and wellbeing at work.

  • 14.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Nordlöf, Hasse
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Engström, Veronica
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Vingård, Eva
    Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Factors at work promoting mental health and wellbeing at work – a systematic literature review2017Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Introduction

    There is strong evidence that work itself, despite its risks, reduces the risk of depression and improves mental health (Waddell & Burton, 2006; van der Noordt, IJzelenberg, Droomers, & Proper, 2014). Mental health, like mental illness, is a vaguely defined concept. Mental health is a non-contextual concept, which can be defined as absence of mental illness and with the opportunity to develop and flourish with high levels of emotional, psychological and social well-being (Keyes, 2005). The concept of wellbeing at work is inclusive. It relates to the physical environment, work-related risks, organization of work and tasks, relationships with colleagues, personal health and work ability and even family-related stress (Suomaa, Yrjänheikki, Savolainen, & Jokiluoma, 2011). It can also be seen as an important determinant of productivity at the individual, corporate and community levels (Schulte & Vainio, 2010).

    "Healthy factors" for mental health in the workplace are factors and circumstances at work that may have a preventive and/or promotional effect on mental health and wellbeing of the workers. These factors can serve as resources (buffers) against negative consequences of various risks at work. They may also be factors that, by themselves, create positive health benefits for the individual and the workplace.

    The large numbers of work-related mental unhealthy in the western world (not the least in Sweden), call for actions in improving working conditions, but which are the important determinants of positive mental health and wellbeing at work to be influenced?  A review of indicators for healthy workplaces has recently been performed (Lindberg & Vingård, 2012), but we have not found any comprehensive review explicitly concerning mental health at work. Hence, the aim of this study was to review current knowledge concerning determinants for mental health and wellbeing at work.

    Method

    Two comprehensive literature searches were conducted in nine scientific databases, EBSCO (includes Academic Search Elite, Cinahl, PsycINFO och PsycARTICLES), Emerald, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, for relevant articles written in English, German or the Scandinavian languages. The first search, covering 2000-2014, was done for a Swedish government report. The second search, covering 2014- June 2016, updated the previous data for the purpose of a scientific publication. Exclusion of articles was made stepwise by title, abstract and full text. The quality of included articles was assessed by acknowledged guidelines (STROBE Statement) and done separately by two researchers. The combined results are being analysed and will be presented in Montreal.

    Search terms were: work OR workplace OR "healthy workplace" OR "healthy work" OR "healthy work* environment" OR "good work* environment" AND "depressive disorder" OR depression OR "behavioral symptoms" OR "anxiety disorders" OR "stress, psychological" OR "common mental disorders" OR "mental health" OR "sustainable mental health” OR "mental wellbeing" OR "mental well-being" OR "job wellbeing" OR "job well-being" OR "positive mental health" OR "good mental health" OR "positive mental wellbeing" OR "positive mental well-being" AND prevention OR promotion.

    Results

    5378 unique publications were found, of these 30 review-, cohort-, cross sectional-, and qualitative studies are included (preliminary data).

    We found 25 individual or “group of related factors” promoting positive mental health and wellbeing at work. Below is a list of the twelve most frequently investigated factors arranged in order of descending frequency.

    • Style of leadership
    • Empowerment; Autonomy; Control at work;      Participation
    • Possibilities for own development
    • Positive work climate
    • Social support from supervisor
    • Communication supervisor-employee
    • Clear goals
    • Appreciation from supervisors, colleagues,      customers
    • Work time control; Enough time
    • Effort-reward balance
    • Intellectually stimulating
    • Job security

    As seen above the most frequently investigated factor was the impact of leadership on mental health. It was found that “good leadership”, i.e. fair, supportive and empowering, gave positive health changes and increased well-being, that increased quality of a staff-oriented leadership reduced sickness absence in the company and that transformational leadership increased psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction among workers.

    Conclusion

    Independent of study design leadership was the most investigated factor. Apart from possibly being a research trend, this can be interpreted as an insight into both its explicit influence on the well-being of the employees, and its implicit influence by having the authority to facilitate communication, empowerment, control, support, respect, work content, feedback, etc.

    Working conditions arise in the interaction between the individual and the organization, but creating working conditions that promote mental health cannot be put on the individual. It must be organized in the workplace for the employees in that special context, whereby the leadership seems to be paramount for the promotion of mental health and wellbeing at work.

  • 15.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Can a systematic participative method for procesing workplace survey data enhance organizational communication skills?2017Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objectives

    The concept healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity (Sauter, Lim, & Murphy, 1996). The PATH-model (Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, 2006) shows a synthesis of earlier research in a number of different disciplines and frames how a healthy workplace with wellbeing for the individual along with organizational improvements can be achieved. The model suggests five general categories of healthy workplace practices: work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, recognition, and employee involvement. In order for these workplace practices to have an influence on the employees and the organizational outcomes the effectiveness of communication within the organization is crucial as is the alignment of workplace practices with the organizational context. Effective organizational communication in this context means that the management communicates what the organization offers the employees in order to enable good performance and wellbeing at work as well as that the employees state their needs in order to do a good job. The ongoing GodA-project (a Swedish acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) aims at investigating if workplace strategies in line with the PATH-model add to better health and wellbeing among the employees as well as organizational improvements. The present study is part of the GodA-project and aims at exploring to which extent the specific “GodA-method” for processing workplace survey data influences organizational communication skills. 

    Methods

    The GodA study is a 2-year follow up study with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers. One of the companies serves as “intervention-company”, the other two as controls. The project started in 2012 with a pre-project by means of focus groups and individual interviews in order to find out how employees and managers in the three companies describe the concept of a healthy work environment and what contributes to their well-being at work. In 2013 a baseline questionnaire was sent out including items, a) based on the combined results of the pre-study and a comprehensive literature review (Lindberg & Vingård, 2012) , and b) well-established questions on health and work environment. The results from the survey were reported back to the companies, which have been processing their respective results. In spring 2015 another survey wave was administered. Parallel, data concerning the company’s key indicators and internal development have been collected.

     Baseline results in the GodA-study showed that the employees considered communication as a very important factor for their well-being at work. However, they also reported that the internal communication was not at all at desired level. Considering that the PATH-model emphasizes internal communication as critical in establishing a healthy workplace, the intervention was designed to enhance communication skills. The “GodA-method”, to process the survey feedback was developed in collaboration with the “intervention-company”. In short, the baseline results concerning health, and physical- and psychosocial factors at the workplace, as reported by respective working group, are split into nine themes. Each theme is designed small enough to be processed during the groups’ monthly staff meetings. At the meetings the employees discuss today’s theme, first without then together with their supervisor and decide upon one measurable action to be taken to improve their work environment. To begin each discussion without the supervisor was a chosen strategy in order to empower the employees and in an implicit way train communication skills. The intervention has been followed by process evaluation forms for the supervisors as well as group interviews with employees and supervisors, respectively.   

    Results

    Nine working groups, each with 7-13 employees, were studied. The individual groups performed heterogeneous. The degree to which the various groups actively took actions for improvements seemed to be associated with the closest supervisor’s understanding of the importance of respective themes and his/her capability to conduct group discussions.

    Communication was measured by a 5-item index showing the discrepancy between experienced and desirable communication level, where an index score of -0,5 to 0 (no discrepancy) was considered as good and a score below -.5 was considered undesirable. Preliminary results show that in groups (=5) performing 3-5 meetings the communication index in average deteriorated from -0.89 to -1.41, whereas groups (=4) performing 8-9 meetings the index improved or remained at a rather high level, in average from -0.92 to -0.71. Further analyses and results will be presented at the conference.

    Conclusion

    The results give support to the hypothesis that systematic and continuous training focusing on a mutual theme is a feasible method for improving communication skills.

    Practical implications

    Healthy workplaces are not created overnight. The GodA-method for processing employee surveys seems to be a useful way to systematically work with continuous improvements of the workplace. However, training of supervisors for group discussions seems necessary.

  • 16.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University.
    Can a systematic participative method for processing workplace survey data enhance organizational communication skills?2016In: Scientific programme: Book of Abstracts, 2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objectives

    The PATH-model (1) frames how a healthy workplace with wellbeing for the individual along with organizational improvements can be achieved, suggesting five healthy workplace practices. In order for these practices to have the desired influence, the effectiveness of communication within the organization is crucial. The ongoing GodA-project (an acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) is set up to investigate different aspects of the PATH-model. The present sub-study aims at exploring to which extent the specific “GodA-method” for processing workplace survey data influences organizational communication skills. 

    Methods

    The GodA study is a 2-year follow up study with a survey feedback design in three companies with both blue- and white collar workers. In one of the companies the “GodA-method” for processing survey feedbacks was developed and tested. Baseline results concerning workplace factors were split into nine themes, small enough to be processed during respective working groups’ monthly staff meetings. At the meetings the employees discussed today’s theme, first without, then together with their supervisor and decided on one action for improvements. This strategy was chosen in order to empower the employees and implicitly train their communication skills. The intervention was followed by process evaluations.   

    Results

    Nine working groups, each with 7-13 employees, were studied. The degree to which the various groups actively took actions for improvements seemed to be associated with the closest supervisor’s understanding of the importance of respective themes and his/her capability to conduct group discussions.

    Communication was measured by a 5-item index showing the discrepancy between experienced and desirable communication level, where -0,5 – 0 was considered as good. In groups (=5) performing 3-5 meetings the communication index in average deteriorated from -0.89 to -1.41, whereas groups (=4) performing 8-9 meetings the index improved or remained at a rather high level, in average from -0.92 to -0.71.

    Conclusion

    The results give support to the idea that systematic and continuous training focusing on a mutual theme is a feasible method for improving communication skills. Training of supervisors for group discussions seems necessary.

  • 17.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University.
    Can a systematic participative method for processing workplace survey data enhance organizational communication skills?: Experiences from the GodA-project for healthy workplaces2015In: Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Conditions in today’s working life make new approaches necessary in order to limit negative health effects of work and to enhance wellbeing and health at work. Despite rather progressive legislation, a century of labour inspections, and the efforts of thousands of occupational health personnel, still 24 % of the working population in Sweden report to have had work-related disorders during the last twelve months (Swedish Work Environment Authority and Statistics Sweden, 2014). Even if the “elimination approach” partly has succeeded in reducing detrimental factors at work, it is obvious that this is insufficient or inadequate for a working life where key issues for progress are motivation, cooperation and creativity (Aronsson, Gustafsson, & Hakanen, 2009). In order to achieve a sustainable working life, not the least to coop with issues related to the ageing population, it is likely that strategies and actions from different and new angles are needed.

    The concept healthy workplace has been defined as an organization that maximizes the integration of worker goals for wellbeing and company objectives for profitability and productivity (Sauter, Lim, & Murphy, 1996). The PATH-model (Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, 2006) shows a synthesis of earlier research in a number of different disciplines and frames how a healthy workplace with wellbeing for the individual along with organizational improvements can be achieved. The model suggests five general categories of healthy workplace practices: work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, recognition, and employee involvement. In order for these workplace practices to have an influence on the employeesand the organizational outcomes the effectiveness of communication within the organization is crucial as isthe alignment of workplace practices with the organizational context. Effective organizational communication in this context means that the management communicates what the organisation offers the employees in order to enable good performance and wellbeing at work as wellas that the employeesstate their needs in order to do a good job.The ongoing GodA-project (a Swedish acronym for good work environments and healthy workplaces) aims at investigating if workplace strategies in line with the PATH-model (Grawitch et al., 2006) lead to better health and wellbeing among the employees as well as organizational improvements. The present study is part of the GodA-project and aims at exploring to which extent the specific “GodA-method” for processing of workplace survey data influences organizational communications skills.

  • 18.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Strömberg, Annika
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work and Psychology, Social work.
    Gustafsson, Susanne
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Public health science.
    Anderzén, Ingrid
    Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University.
    GodA-metoden och dess inflytande på kommunikationsförmågan på arbetet2015In: Book of Abstracts: FALF 2015 : Conference10-12 June 2015, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [sv]

    Trots en progressiv arbetsmiljölagstiftning, 10 år av arbetsmiljöinspektioner och ansträngningar från tusentals arbetsmiljöaktörer rapportera 24% av den arbetande befolkningen i Sverige att de haft arbetsrelaterade besvär under senaste året. Även om eliminationsstrategin delvis varit framgångrik är den otillräcklig eller inadek-vat i dagens arbetsliv där nyckelfaktorer för framgång är motivation, samarbete och kreativitet. För att nå ett hållbart arbetsliv är det troligt att det behövs strategier och åtgärder från andra och nya utgångspunkter. Begreppet ”frisk arbetsplats” har definierats som en organisation/företag som maximerar integrationen av ar-betstagarnas mål med företagets mål. PATH-modellen visar genom en syntes av forskning från olika discipliner hur en frisk arbetsplats kan uppnås. För att, enligt modellen, nå verksamhetseffekter av olika personalfrämjande åtgärder är det nödvändigt med en väl utvecklad kommunikation mellan anställda och ledning. Det pågående GodA-projektet syftar till att undersöka om arbetsplatstrategier i linje med PATH-modellen le-der till bättre hälsa och välbefinnande bland de anställda så väl som organisatoriska förbättringar. Föreliggande delstudie undersöker i vilken grad den s.k. ”GodA-metoden” för bearbetning av medarbetarundersökningar kan påverka kommunikationsförmågan i företaget.

  • 19.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Vingård, Eva
    Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Determinanter för psykisk hälsa och välbefinnande på arbetet – en litteraturöversikt.2015In: Book of Abstracts: FALF 2015 : Conference10-12 June 2015, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [sv]

    Det har konstaterats att det generellt är fördelaktigt för hälsan att vara i arbete och att det finns stark evidens att arbete, trots sina risker, reducerar risken att drabbas av depression liksom förbättrar generell psykisk hälsa. Psykisk hälsa är ett icke-kontextuellt begrepp vilket kan definieras som ett tillstånd då individen är fri från psykisk ohälsa, utvecklas och mår bra (flourish) med höga nivåer av emotionellt, psykologiskt och socialt välbefinnande. Begreppet välbefinnande i arbetet är allomfattande, det relaterar till den fysiska miljön, arbetsrelaterade risker, organisering av arbete och arbetsuppgifter, relationer med kollegor, personlig hälsa och arbetsförmåga och även familjerelaterade påfrestningar. Det kan dessutom ses som en viktig determinant av produktivitet på individ-, företags- och samhällsnivå.

    “Friskfaktorer” för psykisk hälsa på arbetet är faktorer och omständigheter på arbetet som kan ha en preventiv och främjande effekt på arbetstagarna psykiska hälsa och välbefinnande. Dessa faktorer kan vara inverterade riskfaktorer och fungera som buffrare mot negativa konsekvenser av riskfaktorer. De kan också vara faktorer som av sig själva ger positiva hälsovinster för individ och arbetsplats. En kunskapsöversikt över indikatorer för en god arbetsmiljö har nyligen gjorts, men till vår kännedom saknas en översikt som berör psykisk hälsa på arbetet. Således, var syftet med föreliggande studie att fastställa kunskapsläget vad gäller determinanter för psykisk hälsa och välbefinnande på arbetet.

  • 20.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Vingård, Eva
    Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Determinants for positive mental health and wellbeing at work – a literature review2016Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objectives

    There is strong evidence that work itself, despite its risks, reduces the risk of depression and improves mental health. Mental health is a non-contextual concept which can be defined as the absence of mental illness, and with the opportunity to develop and flourish. The concept of wellbeing at work is inclusive, relating to the physical environment, work-related risks, organization of work and tasks, relationships with colleagues, personal health and work ability and even family-related stress. The large numbers of work-related mental unhealthy call for actions in improving working conditions, but which are the important determinants to be influenced?  Hence, the aim of this study was to review current knowledge concerning determinants for mental health and wellbeing at work.

    Methods

    A comprehensive literature search was conducted in nine scientific databases for articles published 2000 and forward. The exclusion by titles were made by one of the researcher, the further selection was made by two researchers independently.

    Results

    Of the 4262 found unique publications 27 were included encompassing 7 reviews,

    12 cohort-, 5 cross-sectional-, and 3 qualitative studies.

    Results

    Of the 4262 found unique publications 27 were included encompassing 7 reviews, 12 cohort-, 5 cross-sectional-, and 3 qualitative studies.The most frequently investigated determinants for mental health and wellbeing at work were, in descending order:

    • Style of leadership: transformative, transactional, positive, employee oriented, ethical, supportive as well as managers own wellbeing
    • Empowerment; Autonomy; Control at work; Participation
    • Possibilities for own development
    • Positive work climate- Social support from supervisor
    • Communication supervisor-employee
    • Clear goals
    • Appreciation from supervisors, colleagues, customers
    • Work time control; Enough time
    • Effort-reward balance
    • Intellectually stimulating
    • Job security

    Conclusion

    Independent of study design leadership is the most investigated factor, which can be interpreted as a sign of its influence on the mental health of the employees. Beside the explicit influence of leadership styles on the employees’ mental health, several studies show an implicit influence, e.g. (enabling) support at work, skilled communication, empowerment, control, treated with respect and intellectual stimulation.Working conditions arise in the interaction between the individual and the organization, not least psychosocial conditions. Prevention and establishment of good working conditions cannot be put on the individual; it must be organized in the workplace for the employees in that special context.

  • 21.
    Lindberg, Per
    et al.
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Vingård, Eva
    Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Determinants for positive mental health and wellbeing at work – a literature review2015In: The Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association - Melbourne, 9-14 August, 2015, 2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In general it can be stated that it is beneficial for your health to be employed. There is strong evidence that work itself, despite its risks, reduces the risk of depression and improves mental health(Waddell & Burton, 2006; van der Noordt, IJzelenberg, Droomers, & Proper, 2014).Mental health, like mental illness, is avaguely defined concept.Mental healthis a non-contextual concept which canbedefined asthe absence ofmental illness, and with the opportunity to developand flourish with high levels ofemotional,psychological and socialwell-being(Keyes, 2005).The concept ofwellbeingat workis inclusive.Itrelates tothe physical environment,work-relatedrisks, organization of work andtasks, relationships with colleagues,personalhealth and work ability and evenfamily-relatedstress(Suomaa, Yrjänheikki, Savolainen, & Jokiluoma, 2011). It canalso be seenas an importantdeterminantofproductivityat the individual, corporate and community levels(Schulte & Vainio, 2010).

    "Healthy factors" for mental health in the workplace are factors and circumstances at work that may have a preventive and/or promotional effect on mental health and wellbeing of the workers. These factors can be reversed risk factors and serve as a resource (buffer) against negative consequences of various risks at work. They may also be factors that, by themselves, create positive health benefits for the individual and the workplace. The large numbers of work-related mental unhealthy call for action in improving working conditions, but which are the important determinants of positive mental health and wellbeing at work to be influenced? A review of indicators for healthy workplaces has recently been performed (Lindberg & Vingård, 2012), but we have not found any comprehensive review concerning mental health at work. Hence, the aim of this study was to review current knowledge concerning determinants for mental health and wellbeing at work.

  • 22.
    Vingård, Eva
    Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Järvholm, Bengt (Contributor)
    Umeå universitet.
    Hogstedt, Christer (Contributor)
    Karolinska Institutet.
    Lindberg, Per (Contributor)
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Karlsson, Thomas (Contributor)
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research.
    Helgesson, Magnus (Contributor)
    Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Johansson, Bo (Contributor)
    Uppsala University Hospital, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Psykisk ohälsa, arbetsliv och sjukfrånvaro: en kunskapsöversikt2015Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [sv]

    Kunskapsöversikten visar att det finns ett vetenskapligt samband mellan arbete, psykisk ohälsa och sjukskrivning. Riskfaktorer i arbetslivet är psykiskt ansträngande arbete, höga krav, låg kontroll, obalans mellan ansträngning och belöning, samt rollkonflikter. God kontroll och rättvisa ger minskad risk för sjukskrivning på grund av psykisk ohälsa.

    Det vetenskapliga underlaget för vilken åtgärd som är mest effektiv vid återgång i arbete efter en sjukskrivning på grund av psykisk ohälsa är svagt. Kunskaps- översikten visar dock tydligt att arbetsplatsen måste vara involverad för att medarbetaren ska komma tillbaka i arbete på ett bra sätt. Det finns flera vetenskapligt dokumenterade friskfaktorer i arbetet som kan minska risken för psykisk ohälsa och som bör användas i det förebyggande arbetet.

    Kunskapsöversikten visar också att effekten på den psykiska hälsan är likartad när kvinnor och män utsätts för samma faktorer i arbetet.

1 - 22 of 22
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf