1 / 31

Trends in Workplace Injury and Absence in Gävleborg County, Sweden

This study explores the trends in workplace injuries and associated risk factors in Gävleborg County, Sweden. It also investigates the duration of sick leave and its determinants. The study is based on data from non-fatal occupational accidents reported between 2007-2012.

wardscott
Download Presentation

Trends in Workplace Injury and Absence in Gävleborg County, Sweden

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Leah Okenwa Emegwa O.D, MPH, PhD 2014-06-24 Trends in Work Place Injury and Consequent Absence from Work in the County of Gävleborg, Sweden

  2. The University of Gävle

  3. Background • Work place injuries contribute to the global burden of disease and injuries • Roughly a million workers injured and a thousand die per day • One year incidence is about 3.2% • Known risk factors include age, gender, occupation etc. • Different direction of association in different contexts

  4. Causesofworkrelatedinjuryinclude • Falls, Loss ofcontrol • Movementwith or withoutload • Violence, Electricity/fire/explosion • Leakage/overflow • Slip/snapping/splitting/breaking of an object

  5. About317 million workerswereinjured in accidents at workthatresulted in absence from workoffourdays or more • Equivalenttoroughly 850,000 injuries per day (Global Estimates)

  6. Sick leavegood for reccuperation • Grave consequencesiftoo long or too short Examples for too long • Negative psychosocialhealthoutcomes • Loss ofjobetc Examples too short (sicknesspresence) • Non full recovery • Risk ofreccurrent short sick leave • Loss/wasteofeconomicresources • Lowerproductivity

  7. Work related injury and illness pattern, Sweden Work related injury men Work related illnesses men Work related injury women Work related illnesses women men Source: Statistics Sweden

  8. Rationale for study • Most studies addresscertain injuries types in certainindustrialsectors • Others present aggregates • Same for sick leave duration • Need for studies at countyleveldueto: -i.Healthcareadministered at countylevel) -ii. Companiespaysickness benefits firsttwoweeks

  9. Aim • To explore trends in workplace injuries and associated risk factors in the county of Gävleborg, Sweden • The study also aims to investigate sick leave duration and its determinants

  10. Gävleborg, Sweden. Gävleborg, Sweden • Centrally located by the east coast • 280 000 inhabitantsliving on almost 20 000 km2 • Three-quarterwoodlands • Lakes, hills and mountains

  11. Method Design • Based on Register kept by the Swedish National Working Environment Agency • Includes all cases of occupational injuries requiring at least one day of sick leave reported to the Swedish social security board

  12. For the present study • All cases of non fatal occupational accident between 2007-2012 • Total 5291cases

  13. Measures DependentVariables • Injury Cause • Sick leave <2weeks >2weeks

  14. Independent Variables -age -gender -occupational sector -Employment status

  15. Data analysis • SPSS • Descriptive analysis • Logistics regressions • Significance level p<0.05 • 95% confidence interval.

  16. Ethical consideration • Ethical approval granted by institutional review board for the region.

  17. Results Loss of controll • Proportion decreaseswith age (49% vs. 23%) • More men • Agriculture (43.7%) and mining (55.6%) • Student/trainees (49.4%) and selfemployed and (36%) Adjusted odds ratio (significant) • 1.8 odds for <20yrs • 1.5 for 20-29yrs • 2.5 odds for students/trainees

  18. Fall • Increaseswith age (12.9% vs. 41.4%) • Morewomen (35.1% vs. 22.4%) • Morethanonethirdofworkers from Specificsectorse.g. electricity/gas, infomation & communication, transport, real estate, health and education. Adjusted Odds Ratio • Increasing OR with age • Sex remained a predictor (morewomen) • 2times risk in real estatesector • 1.4 times risk for permanent workers

  19. Movement involving load Significantly more among • Age 40-49yrs (10.3%) • Women (13.5%) • Healthcare sector (23.3%) Adjusted odds • Risk increases with age up to 40-49 yrs (1.6times) • Higher risk remained for women • 4.6 times risk for workers in health care

  20. Slip/snapping/splitting/breaking of an object • More men (7.6%) • Mostly in construction (11.5%) • Mostlyamongselfemployed (22%) Adjusted OR • Greatest risk for 30-39yr (1.6times) • 2.8times risk for men • Significanceremained for selfemployed

  21. Interpersonal Violence • Highest for age 20-29yrs (15.8%) thenreduceswith age • More men (13.6% vs. 11%) • Most common in Financialsector (50%) and Manufacturing (19.5%) Adjusted OR • Risk 1.6 times for 20-29 yrs • 3.5 times risk for manufacturing • 15.8 times for financialsector

  22. Movement not involving load • Significant only for age • Remains after adjusting for other factors

  23. Electricity/fire/explosion • Increasing proportions among younger workers • More men • Construction sector (3.1%) Adjusted odds • 10.8 times risk for men

  24. Leakage/Overflow • Higheramong men (2%) • More in mining sector (11.1%) Adjusted OR • Significancedisappears

  25. Sick leavelongerthantwoweeks • Increaseswith age • About 2 times risk for injuries resulting from fall, slip/snapp/splitting/breakingofobject and violence • Sick leavelongerthantwoweeksless likelyamongworkers in Healthcare and Manufacturingsectors • Morethantwicelikelihood (2.2 times) amongselfemployed

  26. Discussion/Conclussions • Loss of controll associated with age and inexperience (students/trainee) • Risk for fall with increasing age: a time for setting age limit for certain task? • Movement while carring a load: healthsector and women • Interpersonal violence (16 times risk for financial & 3.5 manufacturing) • Lenght of sick leave- an indication of severity and/or other factors • Quick return to work and Sickness presenteeism following injury: how beneficial in the long run? (lower reporting of injuries requiring sick leave)

  27. ’Iceberg’ of Presenteeism

  28. Reccomendations • More industry specific safety policies and monitoring • Gender consideration in prevention and rehabilitation • Closer monitoring of self employed to minimise injury risks • Calls to build resilience against presenteeism in organisations (Health and Wellbeing Questionnaire: first step) • The need for continous emphasis on training, monitoring and evaluation of existing policies

  29. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths • Reliabledatabaseshown by levelof precision • Weaknesses • Fewvariables • Not abletocompare non injuredworkers vs. Injured

  30. Implications for Future Research/Policy/Innovation • The dynamicsinvolved and factorsresponsible for shorter sick leave duration in health and manufacturingsectors. i.e. severity vs. Sicknesspresenteeism • Opportunities for Bussiness innovations- developmentofmoresafetyproducts (movement under load) • Review of existing policies, training programs and monitoring systems

  31. Tack! (Thank You!)

More Related