Survey feedback as a method of stress management
Author(s): Anna-Liisa Elo, Anneli Leppänen, & Pia Sillanpää Country: Finland
Is the intervention sector specific?	No
Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes?	Yes
Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders?	Yes
Is the intervention based on theory?	Yes
Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored?	Yes
Does the intervention promote CSR and how?	Yes, top management of the organisation need to appoint internal expert groups to clarify the possibilities of satisfying the organisations legal duty and, in turn, promote employee health and wellbeing. These groups are is critical for the success of the intervention.
Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?	Yes, this invention consists of a collaborative initiative between the research-consultant and the personnel in the occupational health department.
Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.): Since the implementation of the occupational safety act of 1987, which included several clauses referring to psychosocial factors, it became the employers’ obligation to plan the work and the work environment in a way that not detrimental the physical or mental health of the employees; this was the underlying motivation of the initiation of an intervention seeking to reduce stressors in the workplace, and thereby promoting employee wellbeing and health. The board of directors of the organisation appointed an internal expert group to clarify the possibilities of satisfying the organisations legal duty and, in turn, promote employee health and wellbeing. This expert group consisted of representatives of management, occupational health personnel, safety personnel and union members. The group collectively decided on utilising a survey feedback process as a method of reducing stressors found in the workplace, and thereby enhance and promote employee health and wellbeing. The reduction of stressors, through a survey feedback method, was planned as a two phase process where: (a) the researcher- consultant support the occupational health personnel in the organisation in developing a practical action model; and (b) the occupational health personnel supported the superiors and employees of the participating work units to reduce stressors. This invention consisted of a collaborative initiative between the research-consultant and the personnel in the occupational health department. The researcher-consultant’s primary task was to structure the process, whereas the role of the occupational health personnel was implementing the devised process at the workshop level.
Implementation: Training Programme for Occupational Health Personnel A three-day training course for the participating occupational health personnel, consisting of physicians and nurses, was delivered; this was done simultaneously with the model survey. The training course concentrated on the survey feedback as a method and on the process-centred consultative role of the occupational health personnel in the collaborative partnership when working with worksites. In between the training sessions, the OH personnel began their own projects in their own area; these projects were used as training material. Additionally, the training sessions acted an evaluative forum; allowing individuals to discuss the use of the survey feedback method. The survey feedback method The survey was carried out using an occupational health questionnaire. This questionnaire was developed to be a useful tool for occupational health personnel to identify and assess problems in the workplace associated to stress; and thereby outline the development needs and necessary actions. The comprehensive version of this questionnaire covers five areas: socio-demographics, perceived work environment, factors modifying stress, response to stress, and the need for work development and individual support. The aim during the development of this questionnaire was to keep it concise and easily applicable as a routine tool, including understandable feedback of the results to the employees. Following implementation, the feedback of the results was delivered to each work unit over 10 sessions, organised to reach the natural work teams and also to allow shift workers to actively participate in the process either directly prior to or directly following their shift. The employees, during these feedback sessions, participated in a discussion; with the overall aim of discussing the results of the survey and, in turn, to set developmental aims. Concentrated emphasis was placed on the development of aims that could be achieved through the superiors’ and employees’ own efforts. The aims were defined separately for each department. An action model outlined the phases of organisational and societal change, which outlines seven implementation phases of the overall intervention. This action model underpinned the implementation of the survey feedback method. The seven phases were as follows: (1) analysis of need for change; (2) assessment of prerequisites for change; (3) definition of goals; (4) choice of strategy and methods; (5) feedback and interpretation; (6) carrying out the change; (7) evaluation.
Practical applications: The questionnaire used as the basis of the survey feedback method was consciously developed to be a user-friendly tool for organisations: to guide the identification of stressors in the workplace contributing to poor occupational health of employees, and provided evidence-based guidance on generating possible solutions.
Innovative aspects: The implementation of the intervention is driven by the organisation, capitalising knowledge of the personnel within the company, and guided by the employees; thus making this process easily applicable at a practical level.
Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): The evaluation of the intervention was based on both quantitative and qualitative data. Post measurements were carried out three years later in one of the departments where the intervention had been conducted. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted with the planning group members, participating occupational health personnel and the department’s directors, charting their opinions on the new model of OHS in health promotion and the overall satisfaction with the survey feedback method. The employees’ opinions were surveyed during routine monitoring of the workplaces and during health examinations.
Benefits (including cost effectiveness): Using the evidence gathered from one department followed up as a case study, several benefits were demonstrated by this approach. The results of the evaluation demonstrate a change in work content, namely an observed increase in the variability of work, while the overall mental and physical strenuousness load decreased in this department. Further, based on the follow-up, it was observed that the occupational health personnel shifted their working model towards a more active co-operation with the work units. The authors noted at the organisation continued to use the survey feedback method as a routine method of the occupational health service of the company.
References: Elo, A.L., Leppaenen, A., & Silanpaa, P. (1998). Applicability of survey feedback for an occupational health method in stress management. Occupational Medicine, 48, 181-188
Comments: The survey feedback method is easily applicable in various different companies and situations. However, the intervention requires specially trained researchers/consultants and company occupational health personnel. Smaller organisations may not have in-house occupational health units and therefore may not always find this approach viable to implement.