Advertisement

Safety for Industry, Threat for Drivers? Insights into the Current Utility of Heath Assessments for Rail

  • Janine Chapman
  • Joshua Trigg
  • Anjum Naweed
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 819)

Abstract

The rail driver workplace is full of challenges for effective health management, posing a significant threat to the sustainability of the industry. In Australia, train drivers undergo periodic health assessment as part of a nationally standardised approach to reducing sudden incapacitation risk; however, studies suggest that the current assessment protocol is not operating as effectively as they might. To improve this, there is a need to understand the experiences of drivers undergoing workplace health assessments, and how they engage with them.

Drawing on research of known barriers and enablers of positive health status, this study sought to examine train drivers’ perceptions and experiences of recurring organisational health assessments and how they subjectively engage with this process. Five focus groups with train drivers (n = 29) were held across four Australian rail organisations, seeking to gain their understanding of the National Standard and their attitudes towards health assessments. Transcript data were subjected to thematic analysis.

Preliminary findings identified four primary factors: drivers’ unmet information needs, low perceived assessment reliability and validity, need for psychological assessment and support, and the use of maladaptive assessment-threat avoidance strategies. This paper presents an overview of these preliminary findings and suggests that driver engagement with health assessment may be improved by proactively addressing these factors in occupational health initiatives and preventative interventions to tackle the growing problem of train driver health impairment.

Keywords

Rail industry Risk and safety management Occupational health 

References

  1. 1.
    Hocking B (2006) The inquiry into the waterfall train crash: implications for medical examinations of safety-critical workers. Occup Health Saf 184(3):126–128Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Transport Commission (2012) National Standard for Health Assessment of Rail Safety Workers. Author, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Transport Commission (2017) National Standard for Health Assessment of Rail Safety Workers. Author, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mina R, Casolin A (2012) The Australian National Standard for rail workers five years on. Occup Med 62:642–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mina R, Casolin A (2007) National standard for health assessment of rail safety workers: the first year. Med J Aust 187(7):394–397Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colquhoun CP, Casolin A (2015) Impact of rail medical standard on obstructive sleep apnoea prevalence. Occup Med 66(1):62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapman J, Naweed A (2015) Health initiatives to target obesity in surface transport industries: review and implications for action. Evid Base 2:1–32Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naweed A, Trigg J, Allan M, Chapman J (2017) Working around it: rail drivers’ views on the barriers and enablers to managing workplace health. Int J Workplace Health Manag 10(6):475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naweed A, Chapman J, Allan M, Trigg J (2017) It comes with the job: work organizational, job design, and self-regulatory barriers to improving the health status of train drivers. J Occup Environ Med 59(3):264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lo SH, van Breukelen GJ, Peters G-JY, Kok G (2013) Proenvironmental travel behavior among office workers: a qualitative study of individual and organizational determinants. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 56:11–22Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielsen JR, Hovmøller H, Blyth P-L, Sovacool BK (2015) Of “white crows” and “cash savers:” a qualitative study of travel behavior and perceptions of ridesharing in Denmark. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 78:113–123Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaezipour A, Rakotonirainy A, Haworth N, Delhomme P (2017) Enhancing eco-safe driving behaviour through the use of in-vehicle human-machine interface: a qualitative study. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 100:247–263Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hafner RJ, Walker I, Verplanken B (2017) Image, not environmentalism: a qualitative exploration of factors influencing vehicle purchasing decisions. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 97:89–105Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morgan DL (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saldana J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL (2009) Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res 9(3):355–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Attride-Stirling J (2001) Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res 1(3):385–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaughan D (1997) The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders Centre for Innovation in CancerFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia
  2. 2.Appleton Institute for Behavioural ScienceCentral Queensland UniversityWayvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations