| Literature DB >> 29903801 |
Peggy Krief1,2, Alessia Zellweger1,2,3, Maria-Pia Politis Mercier3, Brigitta Danuser1,2, Pascal Wild1,2,4, Michela Zenoni1,2, Isabelle Probst3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Like most industrialised countries, Switzerland has introduced legislation to protect the health of pregnant workers and their unborn children from workplace exposure. This legislation provides for a risk assessment, adaptations to workplaces and, if the danger is not eliminated, preventive leave (prescribed by a gynaecologist). This study's first objective is to analyse the degree to which companies, gynaecologists and midwives implement the law. Its second objective is to understand the obstacles and resources of this implementation, with a focus on how relevant stakeholders perceive protective measures and their involvement with them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data will be collected using mixed methods: (1) online questionnaires for gynaecologists and midwives; telephone questionnaires with company human resources (HR) managers in the healthcare and food production sectors; (2a) case studies of 6-8 companies in each sector, including interviews with stakeholders such as women workers, HR managers and occupational health physicians; (2b) two focus groups, one involving occupational physicians and hygienists, one involving labour inspectors.Quantitative data will be analysed statistically using STATA software V.15. Qualitative data will be transcribed and thematically analysed using MaxQDA software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Human Research Ethics Committee of the Canton Vaud (CER-VD) has certified that this research study protocol falls outside of the field of application of the Swiss Federal Act on Research Involving Humans.The publications and recommendations resulting from this study will form the starting point for future improvements to the protection of pregnant women at work and their unborn children.This study started in February 2017 and will continue until January 2020. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: maternity protection; mixed method; occupational exposure; pregnancy; protective legislation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29903801 PMCID: PMC6009567 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Data collection methods per research question
| Research questions | Specific research question | Participants providing data | Data source | Data analysis |
| 1. To what extent is MPL applied within French-speaking Switzerland’s companies and the components of its healthcare system? | To what extent is MPL applied by the companies in the healthcare and food industry sectors? | HR managers, employers | Telephone questionnaires | Descriptive analyses using STATA |
| To what extent is MPL applied by gynaecologist-obstetricians and midwives? | Gynaecologist-obstetricians and midwives | Online questionnaires | Descriptive analyses and hierarchical cluster analyses using STATA | |
| 2. What are the factors influencing the implementation of MPL within French-speaking Switzerland’s companies and the components of its healthcare system? | What are the principal difficulties in the implementation of MPL in companies in the healthcare and food industry sectors? | HR managers, employers | Telephone questionnaires | Descriptive analyses using STATA |
| What are the principal difficulties in the implementation of MPL by gynaecologist-obstetricians and midwives? | Gynaecologist-obstetricians and midwives | Online questionnaires | Descriptive analyses and hierarchical cluster analyses using STATA | |
| 3. How is MPL translated into concrete measures within companies? | What are the disparities between the legal framework, the preventive measures planned by companies and the reality in the workplace? | HR managers, employers, heads of department, occupational physicians and hygienists, women workers who have been pregnant in the last five years | Semi-structured qualitative interviews | Thematic analysis of content |
| 4. What is the experience of the actors concerned, particularly pregnant workers, with regard to the implementation (or not) of maternity protection measures? | What is the impact on women’s real-life experiences with regard to reconciling work and maternity? | Women workers who have been pregnant in the last 5 years. | Semi-structured qualitative interviews | Thematic analysis of content |
| 5. How do occupational physicians and hygienists and work inspectors perceive MPL? | What is their opinion about current maternity protection measures? | Occupational physicians and hygienists and labour inspectors | Focus groups | Thematic analysis of content |
HR, human resources; MPL, maternity protection legislation.
Selection of companies for case studies
| Small (<50 FTP) | Medium (50–250 FTP) | Large (>250 FTP) | |
| Healthcare | 1 | one or 2 | 1 |
| Food industry | 1 | one or 2 | 1 |
FTP, full-time employees.
Number of interviews involved in each case study
| Actors | Number of interviews per company (according to size) | Total estimated for the 6–8 companies |
| Women workers | 1–6 | 30–35 |
| HR managers | 1 | 6–8 |
| Occupational physicians and hygienists | 1 | 6–8 |
| Other relevant actors | 0 or 1 | 4–5 |
| Total | 46–56 |
HR, human resources.
Principal themes to be brought up with the different actors
| Actors | Operationalisation |
| HR managers, employers, heads of department |
Number and categories of workers concerned by MPL in the past 5 years. Types of risks or dangerous activities encountered by pregnant employees. Information given to the employee. Measures put in place to encourage the employee to announce her pregnancy. Risk analyses and measures put in place following an employee’s announcement of her pregnancy (workplace adaptations, changing job tasks). Collaboration with other professionals. Difficulties met and resources available. Incorporation into company policies and links to health protection in general. Propositions and perspectives. |
| Women workers who have been pregnant in the company in the last 5 years. |
The woman’s experience with regard to her pregnancy in an occupational setting (start of pregnancy, announcement to superiors, etc). Information received on MPL. Perception of the risk linked to work or arduous tasks. Adaptations put in place by the company and the perceived level of adequacy with the woman’s needs. Difficulties encountered in the protection of maternity in relation to work organisation, working relationships, the job itself, etc. Reduced working hours or exclusion from work. Adaptations put in place by the woman. Propositions and perspectives. |
HR, human resources; MPL, maternity protection legislation.