INSHPO's survey project: results, design, implementation

1. INSHPO's survey project: results, design, implementation NSHPO обзор проекта: результаты, проектирование, внедрение Bradley Turner American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) Conference on Developing an International Standard of Practice, Moscow 9-10 July

2. Who am I? Кто я такой • Currently (в настоящее время) • Data analyst, ASSE, since March 2012 (Данные аналитиков, Асс, с марта 2012) • Past (прошлое) • Fulbright Fellow, University of Helsinki, Philosophy of Economics (Фулбрайта, Университет Хельсинки, философия экономики) • M.A. Social Science University of Chicago, IL (М.А. социальных наук университета Чикаго, штат Иллинойс) • B.S. Economics Syracuse University, NY (Закладная Экономика Сиракузского университета, штат Нью-Йорк)

3. Objectives and outline (Цели и план) • Retrospective and context of the survey project (Ретроспективные и контекст исследования проекта) • The survey (Опрос) • Data analysis (анализ данных) • Descriptives • Cross-tabs (Кросс-вкладки) • Discussion (обсуждение)

4. Retrospective and context (Ретроспективные и контекст) • International Social Security Association (ISSA) working group (Международная ассоциация социального обеспечения (МАСО) рабочая группа) • ENSHPO / INSHPO takeover (ENSHPO / INSHPO поглощение) • What do SPs / OSH Ps actually do? (Что SPS / ОШ Ps самом деле) • Scope and function(Область применения и функции) • Research goals (исследование целей) • Common Body of Knowledge for OSH professionals (Общий Свод знаний по охране труда специалистов) • Core competencies (Ключевые компетенции) • International certification,licensing (Международная сертификация, лицензирование) • Main literature on the survey (Главная литература по обследованию) • National : Ytrehus 2003 (NO); Bianchi 2004 (IT); Borys et al. 2005 )AU); Dudka 2004 (PL); Jones 2004 (UK); Miguel et al. 2004 (PL); Lang 2004 (CH); Perttula & Saari 2004 (FI); Rillie 2005 (SG); Pryor 2006 (AU); Brauer & Schoolcraft 2008 (US); Pryor & Sawyer 2009 (AU); Toft et al. 2010 (AU). • Europe: Hale et al. 2005; Hale & Ytrehus 2004; Hale & Guldenmund 2006.

5. 15 Countries surveyed (at least)(Обследованных стран (по крайней мере)) • Austria (A) • Australia (AU) • Canada (CA) – No raw data and not represented in analysis • Switzerland (CH) • Cyprus (CY) – No raw data and not represented • Germany (DE) – No raw data but usually represented • Finland (FI) • Italy (IT) • The Netherlands (NL) • Norway (NO) • Poland (PL) • Portugal (PT) • Singapore (SG) • United Kingdom (UK) • United States (US) Note: country sample size is 12 or 13. (Примечание: размеры страны образца 12 или 13.) No raw data and not represented in analysis (Нет исходных данных и не представлены в анализе)

6. The survey and data outline (Исследования и данные плана) A. Organization information (информация об организации) B. Tasks (83 - 1 not in USA = 82) (Задачи (83 - 1, не в США = 82)) C. Types of hazards/ issues (31) (Виды опасности / вопросы (31)) D. Relations with people (internal, external) (36 – 1 = 35) (Отношения с людьми (внутренний, внешний) (36 - 1 = 35)) E. Personal information (Персональная информация)

7. Organization information and E. Personal informationА. Организация информации и Е. Персональная информация

8. Sample size (% Full)Размер выборки (% Full) Response Rate Скорость отклика Male мужчина Full-time Safety Полный рабочий день безопасности Internal, External** Внутренняя, внешняя ** Multi – Site Multi – сайт Multi-Country Многострановой Edu : High, Mid, Low Edu: высокая, средняя, низкая Experience: 0-10, >10 Опыт работы: 0-10,> 10 *CA, DE not in Total * CA, DE, не в общем **Other categories: "Social insurance and other insurance", "Government agency", and "Other« ** Другие категории: "Социальное страхование и другие страховые", "государственное учреждение" и "Другие« Total общий Organization information and E. Personal information А. Организация информации и Е. Персональная информация

9. The education question (Вопрос образования) Hale-Guldenmund 06 / Me University/Masters/PhD Bachelors Polytechnic-High / Associate Polytechnic-Low / Some College Secondary School Other Blank Rubric пустая Рубрика US AU IT DE CH-De UK

10. Hale - Guldenmund 06 / Me University/Masters/PhD Bachelors Polytechnic-High / Associate Polytechnic-Low / Some College Secondary School Other The education question (Вопрос образования) Хейл - Guldenmund 06 / Me Университет / Мастера / PhD Бакалавры Политехнический-High / Associate Политехнический-Low / Некоторые колледжа средняя школа другой

11. Education образование

12. Graduate Выпускник Undergraduate студент Associate / Polytechnic-High Associate / Политехнический-High Some college / Polytechnic – Low Средне / Политехнический – низкая Secondary school средняя школа Other другой High высокий Mid средний Low низкий All countries Все страны Education образование

13. All values are % 10 26 20 38 14 47 66 38 19 1 7 6 4 56 87 63 3 0 48 58 31 46 60 48 1 4 15 37 2 7 11 38 24 13 22 13 10 17 9 7 2 14 3 4 4 8 3 6 21 5 3 19

14. The ”Years of experience as a safety professional” question Blank Rubric US

15. Years of experience as a safety professional

16. 14 28 57 6% 21 23 6 16 15 34 17 15 21 13 36 21 21 20 7 27 36 32 24 45 47 29 21 44 32 54 52 30 25 34 43 27 23 31 28 24 21 19 19 17 14 8 1

17. Task, hazards, relations at three levels: respondent, country, sample. • Respondent • Whether respondent does (1) or does not (0) at least yearly complete a task, deal with a hazard , or have a relation. • Country • If completion % is ≥60 for a country then task/hazard/relation is core to that country. • Sample • If task/hazard/relation is core to 10-13,4-9, or0-4 countries it is hard-core, core, orsub-core to the survey sample. Dichotomized: 1 0

18. Average completion rates for tasks, hazards, relations by country

19. Two task distributions: % in hard-core by country range & # of countries 0-3 countries 32% 0 countries17% 2 2%3 1%4 2% 5 1% 6 2% 7 4% 8 2%9 2% 1 11% 4-9 countries 15% 10 9% 10-13 countries 54% 11 7% 12 17% 13 countries 21% 82 Tasks

20. Two hazard distributions: % in hard-core by country range & # of countries 0-3 countries 32% 0 countries13% 1 6% 2 10% 3 3%5 3% 6 2% 7 3% 8 2% 9 6%10 0% 4 6% 4-9 countries 26% 9 6% 11 10% 10-13 countries 42% 12 13% 13 countries 19% 31 Hazards

21. Two relations distributions: % in hard-core by country range & # of countries 0-3 countries 34% 0 countries 11% 1 0% 5 3% 7 3% 9 0%10 3% 2 6% 3 17% 4 9% 4-9 countries 29% 6 6% 8 9% 10-13 countries 37% 11 9% 12 6% 13 countries 20% 35 Relations

22. B. Tasks: 82 tasks in 8 groups BI. Problem identification, analysis (5) BII. Developing, implementing solutions (28) BIII. Training, information, communication (13) BIV. Inspection and research (8) BV. Emergency procedures, settlement of damage (9) BVI. Regulatory tasks (- 1 not in USA) (8) BVII. Knowledge management (6) BVIII. Management and financial (5)

23. 17/44 hard-core tasks ≥ 60% in all 13 countries

24. 14/44 hard-core tasks ≥60% in 12 countries

25. 13/44 hard-core tasks: ≥60% in 10-13 countries

26. 12/12 core tasks ≥60% in 5-9 countries

27. 13/26 sub-core tasks ≥60% in 1,2,3 countries

28. 13/26 sub-core tasks ≥60% in no country

29. Task distribution: ≥60% in 10-13 countries is hard-core; 5-9 is core; 0-3 is sub-core

30. Task distribution: ≥60% in 10-13 countries is hard-core; 5-9 is core; 0-3 is sub-core • Highest group: Training, information, and communication • Inform and discuss safety cluster (5 hard-core tasks) drives result • Safety campaign cluster (3), training, record/keeping, publishing. • Sub core: involve in selection criteria for employees, keep records • High • Develop and implementing solutions • Inspection and research • Problem ID and analysis • Middle: Knowledge management (highest % tasks) • Lowest: Regulatory, Emergency procedures, damages, settlement.

31. Tasks take aways • Polarized distribution. Well-defined int’l hard-core (and periphery) • 10-13 countries : 54% or 44 tasks • 13 countries: 21% or 17 tasks • 10-13 at 80%: 16% or 13 tasks • Reflects conventional, technically oriented SP • Training information and communication group means contact with all levels of company employees. • Develop and implement solutions group means machinery, process, workplace safety; personal protective equipment • Knowledge management group means continued education is key • Low: regulatory, environmental/sustainability, emergency procedures.

32. C. 31 Hazards; groups Core safety (10) Industrial hygiene (9) Ergonomics (4) Psychosocial (4) Environmental/sustainability (2) Product areas (2)

33. Hard-core & core hazards

34. Sub-core hazards

35. Hazards groups • Ergonomics: core to 82% respondents, 12.25 countries • Lifting (13), working posture (13), other physical workload (12), visual display units (VDUs) (11) • Core safety: core to 69% respondents, 9.6 countries • Electricity (13), machinery and installations (13), human error (13), falls (12), fire (12), vehicles (11), explosion (9), road/transport (7), subsidence and collapse (2), external safety (4). • Industrial hygiene: core to 60% respondents and 6.8 countries • Noise (13), lighting (12), cold/heat (11), toxic/carcinogenic substances (9), occupational disease(6), vibration (5), bio risk (4), non-ionising radiation (1), ionising radiation (0). • Psychosocial: core to 45%, 3.25 countries • Mental workload/stress (8), bullying and harassment (2), drugs/alcohol (3), violence against employees (0) • Environmental/sustainability: core to 42%, 1 country • Environmental pollution (2), Lack of sustainability of production or products (0) • Product areas: core to 34%, 0.5 countries • Accidents (to patients, passengers, students, or other clients) (1), product liability (0)

36. D. Hard-core & core relations

37. Core and sub-core relations

38. Summary and take-aways • Hard core: 54% or 44 tasks, 42% or 13 hazards, 37% or 13 relations. • 13 countries: 21% or 17 tasks, 19% or 6 hazards, 20% or 7 relations • 10-13 at 80%: 16% or 13 tasks, 10% or 3 hazards, 20% or 7 relations • Hard core reflects conventional, technically oriented SP • Contact with all levels of employees, focus on machinery, process, workplace safety; personal protective equipment • Tasks, hazards, and relations. • Knowledge management, staying current and ongoing education is key. • Ergonomics is a key, high-completion-rate sub-group. • Low: • Regulatory tasks including being a member of standards comimittee, keeping statistics about sickness, being a member of fire team • Environmental/sustainability tasks and environmental pollution hazard; • Contact with industry and national federations.

39. Potential limitations to inference • Besides some demographics, the survey data is consistent and comparable across all countries. • Probably not problems • Questionnaire fatigue (169 questions, ~ 1 hour). • Analysis sensitive results? • Definitions and cut-points • Recoding and processing schemes • Sample and target population • Selection bias • Sampling through professional associations. • Heterogeneity and representativity • Country idiosyncrasies • Language and translation • Education and affiliation distinctions • Response rate and sample size: big country effects

40. Potential further analysis • Finer analysis of tasks, hazards, relations • Exploit ordinal data: daily, weekly, yearly, quarterly, yes but not yet, no, never, other. • Factor analysis and clustering of tasks (see Hale et al 2005, Hale & Guldenmund 2006 and others) • By country, region, country groups • By demographic variables: education, experience • Measuringing or expanding representativity • Improving response rates • Bias elimination strategies

41. Thank you! For presentation, paper write-up bradleyRturner@gmail.com