Occupational Safety and Health professionals’ work ability concept perception, and comprehension of regulations

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Suleiman, Abdulqadir Mohamad^*

Affiliations: Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, Norway

Correspondence: [*] Address for correspondence: Abdulqadir Mohamad Suleiman, Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, P.O. Box 8140 Department N-0034 Oslo, Norway. Tel.: +4797462054; Fax: +4722177810; E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) professionals are key players in workplace regulation compliance and promotion of health. OBJECTIVES: To assess OSH professionals’ perceptions of the concept of work ability in an attempt to explain the varied, and in some cases failure of, implementation of regulations and policies. METHOD: An electronic questionnaire sent to approved Occupational Health Services (OHS) in Norway asked several questions, including one on the concept of work ability. Responses from OSH professionals in the OHS serving cleaning companies were analysed for commonalities and dissimilarities, thereby establishing some perception patterns. RESULTS: OSH professionals from 40 OHS included in the study responded with explanations characterized by variations. Some included elaborate aspects in the explanations, others ranged from simple to lacking aspects of explanation compared to an identified benchmark definition. CONCLUSION: There are significant comprehension disparities in the understanding of the concept of work ability. Correct understanding of the concepts and constructs in a given regulatory framework are tantamount to the proper implementation of the requirements of the regulation provisions. There is a need to streamline and improve the understanding of OSH professionals in order to ensure uniformity of purpose, and hence fulfilment of the vision of the regulation in focus.

Keywords: OSH professionals, Occupational Health Services (OHS), understanding regulation, uniformity of purpose, cleaning companies

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-172514

Journal: Work, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 483-490, 2017