| Literature DB >> 33114108 |
Yana Korneeva1, Natalia Simonova2.
Abstract
(1) Background: the research purpose is to identify and describe the stress and working capacity dynamics of oil and gas fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers in the Arctic during the fly-in period using biochemical, psychophysiological and psychological methods with further analysis of the relationship between them using objective, subjective and projective indicators. (2)Entities:
Keywords: cortisol; fly-in-fly-out work; industrial psychology; job stress; objective; oil and gas extraction industry; subjective (perceived) and projective stress parameters; working capacity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33114108 PMCID: PMC7660315 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217759
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Calculation and description of interpretation coefficients for M. Lusher’s test, developed by G.A. Aminev.
| Interpretation Coefficients | Calculation * | High Values | Low Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heteronomy–autonomy | (blue spot + yellow spot) − (green spot + red spot) | Heteronomy (from 0 to plus 9.8) is passivity, a tendency to a dependent position on others, sensitivity | Autonomy (from 0 to minus 9.8) is independence, activity, initiative, independence, tendency to dominate, striving for success and self-affirmation |
| Concentricity–eccentricity | (blue spot + green spot) − (red spot + yellow spot) | Concentricity (from 0 to plus 9.8) is focusing on one’s own problems | Eccentricity (from 0 to minus 9.8) is interest in the environment as an object of influence or a source of assistance |
| Vegetative balance (VB) | (Red spot + yellow spot) − (Blue spot + black spot) | (From 0 to plus 9.8) is the predominance of the sympathetic nervous system, i.e., mobilization of all functions, preparation for active protection, flight | (From 0 to minus 9.8) is the predominance of the parasympathetic nervous system, i.e., the body’s work is aimed at rest, recuperation, saving resources |
| Balance of personality traits (PB) | (green spot + yellow spot) − (blue spot + red spot) | (0 to plus 9.8) is an unstable, contradictory personality | (From 0 to minus 9.8) is a balance of personality traits |
| Working capacity | green spot + red spot + yellow spot | (9.1 to 16) this is low working capacity | (from 16 to 20.9) this is high working capacity |
| Stress | C1 ** + C2 *** | If from 0 to 20, then there is a tendency to form stress | if more than 20, then this is a manifestation of a stressful state |
| Standard deviation from the autologous normal (SD) **** | To calculate the SD, it is necessary to compare the order of places that occupy the colors in the selection with their “ideal” location (red (3)—yellow (4)—green (2)—violet (5)—blue (1)—brown (6)—gray (0)—black (7)). | SD is an indicator of emotional discomfort degree, that is, from a state of absolute rest. The general meaning of the points can be determined as follows: | |
Note: * M. Luscher identifies seven criteria, depending on where the given color stands. In turn, the position occupied by the color has a conditional score: 1st place—8.1 points; 2nd place—6.8 points; 3rd place—6.0 points; 4th place—5.3 points; 5th place—4.7 points; 6th place—4.0 points; 7th place—3.2 points; 8th place—1.9 points. ** C1 = 8.1 × x1 + 6.8 × x2 + 6 × x3, where x1, x2, x3 are the positions of the first three places, if at 1,2,3 positions are brown, gray, black, then one is substituted in the parenthesis. *** C2 = 6 × y1 + 6.8 × y2 + 8.1 × y3, где y1, y2, y3—the last places, if at 6,7,8 positions are blue, green, red, yellow, then the unit is substituted in brackets. **** After Wallneffer’ research [71], the 34251607 choice was adopted by M. Luscher as the norm of color preferences and is a reference indicator of neuropsychic well-being.
Characteristics of the “subjective control level” questionnaire scales.
| Questionnaire Scales | Characteristic of a High Level of Expression | Characteristic of a Low Level of Expression |
|---|---|---|
| General internality scale | Reflects a high level of subjective control over any significant situations. | Corresponds to a low level of subjective control. |
| Achievement internality scale | Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good that was and is in their life, and that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future. | Such a person attributes his success, achievements and joys to external circumstances—luck, good fortune, or the help of other people. |
| Failure internality scale | These traits are manifested in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering. | Such a person is inclined to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or to consider them the result of bad luck. |
| Internality scale in family relationships | This person considers himself responsible for the events taking place in his family life. | This subject considers not himself, but his partners to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family. |
| Internality scale in industrial relations | This person considers his actions to be an important factor in organizing his own production activities, developing relationships in the team, his promotion, etc. | A person tends to attribute more importance to external circumstances - leadership, workmates, luck or bad luck. |
| Internality scale in interpersonal relations | Such a person considers himself to be responsible for building interpersonal relationships with others. | A person is inclined to attribute more importance in this process to circumstances, an occasion, or to people around him. |
| Internship scale in health and disease | A person considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, then he blames himself for this and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions. | A person considers illness and health to be the result of an accident and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, primarily doctors. |
Sample characteristics.
| Characteristics | Min–Max | Mean ± SD | 25th Percentile | 50th Percentile | 75th Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 24–60 | 38.46 ± 1.410 | 31.0 | 35.5 | 47.0 |
| FIFO work experience in the North | 0.5–31 | 9.53 ± 1.072 | 3.0 | 9.0 | 15.0 |
Figure 1The stress dynamics among oil and gas employees during the fly-in period.
Figure 2The working capacity dynamics among oil and gas employees during the fly-in period.
The ANOVA results in relation to the stress and working capacity indicators.
| Stress and Working Capacity Indicators | Unit | M ± SD in Beginning Fly-In | M ± SD in Middle Fly-In | M ± SD in End Fly-In | Pillai’s Trace | F | Hypothesis df | Error df | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stress level by cortisol content in saliva | nmol/L | 13.4 ± 1.40 | 10.4 ± 1.57 | 17.7 ± 2.22 | 0.366 | 2.780 | 10.000 | 124.000 | 0.004 |
| Stress level according to the M. Luscher’s method | points | 8.2 ± 0.58 | 4.5 ± 0.64 | 9.4 ± 0.66 | 0.189 | 9.881b | 2.000 | 85.000 | 0.000 |
| Operator working capacity according to CVMR | points | 47.7 ± 4.41 | 51.2 ± 4.91 | 53.5 ± 5.64 | 0.384 | 3.962 | 6.000 | 100.000 | 0.001 |
| Working capacity according to M. Luscher’s method | points | 9.2 ± 0.38 | 9.2 ± 0.30 | 9.3 ± 0.42 | 0.432 | 6.529 | 6.000 | 142.000 | 0.000 |
| Well-being | points | 5.6 ± 0.258 | 5.2 ± 0.37 | 4.7 ± 0.40 | 0.260 | 11.249b | 2.000 | 64.000 | 0.000 |
| Activity | points | 5.7 ± 0.23 | 5.6 ± 0.27 | 2.4 ± 0.35 | 0.472 | 38.068b | 2.000 | 85.000 | 0.000 |
| Mood | points | 5.9 ± 0.24 | 5.7 ± 0.34 | 5.7 ± 0.30 | 0.250 | 10.680b | 2.000 | 64.000 | 0.000 |
Figure 3Correlation pleiad of relationship between objective and projective indicators of fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) workers’ stress and working capacity at an oil and gas production enterprise.
Figure 4Correlation relationship pleiad between the objective and subjective indicators of FIFO workers’ stress and working capacity in oil and gas production enterprise.
Figure 5Correlation pleiad of relationship between subjective and projective indicators of FIFO workers’ stress and working capacity at an oil and gas production enterprise.
Figure 6Oil and gas employees’ FIFO work experience with different levels of standard deviation from the autogenous norm.