Search results

Abstract
The hypothesis of the study was that psychosocial risk factors are more common in industries involving intellectual work, such as education and public administration (Group 1), rather than in industries like construction, agriculture, and forestry where physical work is more common (Group 2). This hypothesis was confirmed and the important findings were that the most common psychosocial risk factors in Group 1 were staff conflicts, conflicts with managers and clients, also lack of time and having to communicate with clients during the working day. Violence, especially physical and psychological violence was a common risk factor in Group 1; mostly the client caused the violence. In Group 2 the most common psychosocial risk factors were overtime work, conflicts with managers, lack of time and having to communicate with clients during the working day. Overtime work was the most common risk factor in construction, agriculture, and forestry industries.

Abstract
Increased noise, which is also below the occupational exposure values and is "hearing safe" noise, affects the exposed person's health as a non-specific stressor. Increased noise level also creates an environment for additional vocal apparatus load. The objective of this study was to determine preschool personnel occupational noise and its relationship with subjective health complaints. Data were obtained with survey assistance through subjective answers of respondents about health complaints and noise exposure among Rīga preschool personnel. Objective noise measurements were made to assess real noise levels in the preschool environment. Data from 155 respondents and objective measurements of 37 preschool classrooms were obtained. The results showed that the average 8-h noise exposure among Rīga preschool educational institutions was 70 dB(A), which did not exceed the Latvian work environment noise limits, but exceeded the 35–40 dB(A) noise limit in the educational environment guidelines recommended by the WHO. The survey results showed that loud noise is one of the most important workplace environmental factors (~70% of respondents feel a necessity to increase voice because of noise). A constant feeling of fatigue, headache, irritable feeling, and a desire to isolate oneself from others more often occurred in respondents exposed to increased noise, compared with those who noted that they were not exposed to increased noise. In general, loud noise was associated with increased subjective health complaints in preschool education institution personnel.

Abstract
There are many factors that affect the well-being and health of employees and the productivity of organisations. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the Metal Age training programme (MA®) on the well-being of office workers, including investigation of work ability, the stress-causing factors and role of leadership. The study was carried out using questions from four international questionnaires about stress, leadership, and work ability. The intervention group had a training course between the surveys using the ME® method. Several employee stress-causing factors were identified: bad relationship with their workmates was mentioned by 94% of workers; competitive and strenuous atmosphere — by more than 80%; psychological violence or bullying at the workplace by more than 80%, and more than 75% of employee's could not relax after work. Wellness and microclimate in the workplaces were on a relatively high level: the average rating of seven Kiva questions was 7.5. The respondent attitude after ME® did not change significantly. Latvian office workers displayed moderate and good work ability (Work Ability Index, WAI 34.5–38.6). The best work ability was shown in the age group from 20 to 49 (WAI 34.8–39.4); work ability decreased with age. The best correlation was observed between Work Ability Index and "get into situations, that invoke negative feelings" (r = 0.26) and "carrying out ongoing tasks because of other intervening or more urgent matters" (r = −0.24). After ME® the reaction to some stress-causing factors was improved.

Background: This article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation. Methods: In November 2013, a stakeholders' survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises' size. Results: Only Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements. Conclusions: Finland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland's practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.

Background: This article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation. Methods: In November 2013, a stakeholders' survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises' size. Results: Only Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements. Conclusions: Finland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland's practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.

Background: This article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation. Methods: In November 2013, a stakeholders' survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises' size. Results: Only Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements. Conclusions: Finland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland's practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.

Background: This article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation. Methods: In November 2013, a stakeholders' survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises' size. Results: Only Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements. Conclusions: Finland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland's practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.