The Wellbeing of Mobile Personnel: Investigating the Ergonomic, Psychosocial and Organisation Factors for Remote and Isolated Workers
The IOM has completed a project funded by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF) to examine the health and wellbeing of remote and mobile workers (RMWs). In the context of the project a remote and mobile worker is defined as an individual who spends less than 4 hours at a home or office base per week with the majority of their working time being on the road or with clients. It is estimated that there are 1 million such workers in the UK and Ireland.
Little is known about the health and wellbeing of this occupational group and the study aimed to evaluate health and wellbeing through:
- A systematic evidence review and interviews with RMWs
- A questionnaire survey of RMWs
The Evidence Review
The evidence review identified a limited amount of research within this occupational group. The major factors are presented below
- The majority of research in relation to health was about the musculoskeletal system. The most frequent injury sites were the neck, shoulders and lower back. Associations were identified between driving (both mileage and hours) and lower back symptoms, neck symptoms and shoulder symptoms (***)
- Poor mental health was associated with high demands, low decision making authority, low skill discretion, role conflict and job insecurity. Associations were also identified between psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal symptoms (**)
- Vehicle ergonomics were assessed and it was identified that having an adjustable lumbar support and adjustable steering wheel were linked to a reduction in sickness absences due to musculoskeletal pain (**)
- It was suggested that RMWs have more control over time at work but this is not the case for those in service industries (*)
- There was a suggestion that work-life balance could be improved using RMW (**)
The Questionnaire Survey
The questionnaire was distributed to 3600 participants in two companies. The survey achieved a 7% response rate with 243 usable questionnaires returned. These were from a cross-section of participants across the UK.
The age range of participants was between 23-66 years and 98% were male. The length of time individuals had worked as RMWs ranged from 1 to 42 years.
Key Results
The analysis identified that 64% of individuals could be described as being a case for psychological distress; defined as scoring 4 or more on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). Physical symptom reporting and fatigue were not high from the Pennebaker Index of Limbic Languidness (PILL) and the Chronic Fatigue Scale. Musculoskeletal symptom as measured by the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) were found to be higher for the neck, lower back, right shoulder and knee regions.
- GHQ Caseness was significantly associated with physical fatigue (OR=1.48; 95% CI 1.13-1.94), PILL score (OR=1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05), hours driving (OR=1.07; 95% CI 1.02-1.13) and mental fatigue (OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.08-2.56)
- A positive relationship found between the GHQ, fatigue and physical symptoms
- Musculoskeletal symptoms were found to be associated with higher mileage but higher mileage was associated with reduced PILL scores
- Increased contact with managers was associated with a reduction in somatic symptoms on the GHQ but an increase in PILL scores; lack of contact with managers was associated with an increase in social dysfunction.
- Lack of contact with colleagues was associated with an increase in severe depression on the GHQ
Conclusions
Although there is limited research available for review and this was a small survey, a number of key issues have been identified including high levels of psychological distress and musculoskeletal symptom reporting. A number of factors including long hours, high mileage, contact with managers and co-workers were found to mediate these factors.
Guidance for managers has been developed from this research project and will be available from BOHRF in the future.
The final project report is available at http://www.bohrf.org.uk/downloads/224E05_Final_Report-December_2009.pdf
The abstract of the paper published in 'Occupational Medicine' is available here: