Teresa Noto InGRID Seminar, 26.07.2016 (HIVA) Research question - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Teresa Noto InGRID Seminar, 26.07.2016 (HIVA)

 Research question  Materials and methods

• European legislation
• Literature review
• Data analysis

 Progress developed the InGRID/HIVA visiting  Future work  The aim of the project

Does Does Framewor work k Directive ive 89/391 91 EEC C reduce the health proble lems ms at at wo work in the EU ?

 Aim of the research: Understanding whether

the European Legislation improve health, safety, and working condition at work in Europe.

 Materials and methods: European legislation,

literature review and data analysis

The interpretation of the Directive 89/391 steers towards an idea of:

• Primary prevention (aimed at avoiding the risks

before they occur in the workplace, (Art. 3 and Art. 6.)

• General principles of prevention, targeting all

aspects of the work situations (Art. 3)

• Programmed prevention thought out before and in

general terms and not periodically (Art. 6, Par. 2,

• Lett. G) or following demanding events to the

health of workers

 The communication stated that there was

evidence of the positive influence of EU legislation on national standards for OHS but at the same time, the report highlighted various flaws in the application of the legislation that were holding back achievement of its full potential. It also noted cases where infringement proceedings had been opened.

 Three different groups: 1.

Member State with old or inadequate legislation: Gr Greece, , Ireland, d, Portuga gal, l, Spain, , Italy, , Luxembo mbourg urg

2.

Member State with existing national legislation to be refined: Austria ria, , France ce, , Ge Germany, , Belgium, ium, Netherl rland ands, s, United Kingdom

• m

3.

Member State with rules in line with directive: Denmark, Finland, and, Sweden

The implementation strategy of the directive

 avoiding risks  evaluating the risks  combating the risks at source  adapting the work to the individual  adapting to technical progress  replacing the dangerous by

the non- or the less dangerous

 developing a coherent overall prevention policy  prioritizing collective protective measures (over individual protective

measures) Increase rease the equipme ipment nt protecti ction

• n

 giving appropriate instructions to the workers Increase

ase the informa mati tion

• n and the worke

kers rs safety ty perce cepti tion Reduce uce risks at work Improve the workp kplace ace

1.

Test: Directive 89/391

2.

Goal: Reduce health problems

3.

Means:



Reduce e the risks s at w work



Improvem vement ent the workplace ce



Increase se the equipment ent protec tecti tion

• n



Increase se the informa rmati tion

• n and t

the worker ers s safety ety percep eption tion



European Working Condition Survey



EU15



Period: 2000-2005-2010



3 Cluster countries after communication 2004: clusterbad (1group) – clustermedium(2group) – clustergood(3group)

 Descript

iptive ive statis istic tics

• Univar

ivariate iate analysis sis

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 31.95 13.14 54.91 100.00 Total 13,012 5,349 22,359 40,720 86.91 96.06 76.79 82.55 33.64 15.28 51.07 100.00 Yes 11,309 5,138 17,169 33,616 13.09 3.94 23.21 17.45 23.97 2.97 73.06 100.00 No 1,703 211 5,190 7,104 lem 2000 2005 2010 Total healthprob year of survey

• Bivar

aria iate te analysis ysis The second step is an analysis of bivariate relationships between variables. Bivariate analysis, health problems variable and: Age variable sex variable type contract variable sector variable

 Researchers

have examined the role

• f

perceptions of workplace safety in understanding the industrial accident process (Guastello & Guastello, 1988; Murphy, Sturdivant, & Gershon, 1993).

 There are clear differences in job quality and

work well-being by the type of job contract (M. Kauhanen & J. Nätti, 2015, Pirani & Salvini, 2015)

 EU – OSHA (last campaign for older workers, risks

about young people and women)

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 80.14 10.49 1.72 0.99 6.67 100.00 Total 26,603 3,481 570 328 2,214 33,196 82.72 82.48 78.95 76.22 79.54 82.35 80.50 10.50 1.65 0.91 6.44 100.00 Yes 22,006 2,871 450 250 1,761 27,338 17.28 17.52 21.05 23.78 20.46 17.65 78.47 10.41 2.05 1.33 7.73 100.00 No 4,597 610 120 78 453 5,858 lem an indefi a fixed t a tempora an appren other Total healthprob q7_lt. type of contract (long trend)

• Bivariate

ate analys ysis Health th problems and type of

• f contract

ract

 Dependent variable: WORK AFFECTS HEALTH  Explanatory variable: CLCOUNTR x COMMUNICATION

stage1

 Control variables: clcountr, demographics, contract

Stage2

 Mediating variables: implementations (risks,

information, equipment, workplace improvement)

Stage3 Interaction effect: split by gender/age.. Stage 4

• Multiv

tivari ariate ate analysi ysis s

Futur ure e Work

1. 1.

Mult ltip iple le re regr gression sion model

 Health= ß˳+ ß risks+ ßinfo+ ßequi+ ß worpl+ ϵ

explanatory variable

and mediation variables age variable sex variable type contract variable Background workers variables sector variable

Control variables Interaction variables

 Differe

erence-in in-Di Diff ffer erences ences Estim imation ation

Three key variables

• Tit

it = the clustercountry that will eventually be

treated

• Ait

it = the times when treatment occurs

• Tit

itAit it = interaction term, treatment after the

intervention Yit

it =

= β0 + + β1Tit

it +

+ β2Ait

it +

+ β3Tit

itAit it +

+ εit

it

Data varies by

• clcoun (i)
• time (t)
• Outcome is Work affects Health
• Only two periods {before-after – in fact you could also check

effect in a third period]

Differen rence ce-in in-Diffe fferences rences Estimat atio ion

 WHealth= ß clcountr+ ß time+ ß clcountr∙com04

stage1

 + control variables

WHealth=ßclcountr+ ß time+ ßclcountr∙com04+ßage +sex..

Stage2

 + explanatory varaibles

WHealth= ß clcountr+ ß time+ ß clcountr∙com04+ß risks+ ßinfo+ ßequi+ ß worpl

Stage3