Week 1 - Introduction to Health and Well being

Learning Objectives

● Understand the history and roots of health and wellbeing at work

● Familiarise with terms and vocabulary

● Outline some of the meanings of work and well being

● Identify the possible relationships between work and well-being

1
In 2021 it could be argued that well being and mental health have become central

to all work related topics including employee satisfaction, organisational culture

and organisational change. Many occupational psychologists are working in the

promotion of well being and millions of dollars a year are spent in consultancy and

interventions. In this module we will look at many aspects of health and wellbeing

and some topics will appear in different sections as they relate across the

theoretical framework.

Workplace wellbeing relates to all aspects of working life, from the quality and

safety of the physical environment, to how workers feel about their work, their

working environment, the climate at work and work organization. The aim of

measures for workplace wellbeing is to complement OSH (Occupational safety and

health) measures to make sure workers are safe, healthy, satisfied and engaged at

work.

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) is concerned with the health, safety, and

welfare of employees in the workplace. We also call it Occupational Health and

Safety (OHS), Workplace Health and Safety (WHS), and Occupational Health.

2
Apart from fostering a healthy and safe work environment, the term also includes

the protection of co-workers and family members. In some cases, OSH may

include customers, employers, and other people who the workplace environment

may affect.

Workers well-being is a key factor in determining an organisation's long-term

effectiveness. Many studies show a direct link between productivity levels and the

general health and well-being of the workforce.

The psychology of work and health is primarily concerned with the role and

respective interplay between psychological, social and organisational aspects of

working, and seeks to understand how these various domains impact upon both

individual and organisational health. This field brings together and, moreover,

draws on a number of key fields in the area of psychology and related fields

including: positive psychology, work and organisational psychology, health

psychology, environmental psychology, human factors and ergonomics.

3
This module adopts a biopsychosocial model to understand workplace health, with

the primary aim to facilitate a full and comprehensive understanding of workplace

health and safety at both a micro and macro level.

The focus of this module is to understand how work can contribute to the

impairment of worker’s health, safety, and well-being; and, in turn, how this

knowledge can be used to prevent employee ill health and, moreover, promote

optimal employee health, engagement, resiliency, and productivity.

The module will have a concentrated applied focus, which will demonstrate and

discuss the translation and application of psychological theories and principles into

development of healthy workplace policies, organisational systems, and

management practices.

The state of the art of occupational health psychology OHP

The term ‘occupational health psychology’ was coined in 1990 at the University of

Hawaii by a team of academics who observed unfulfilled potential for

4
psychologists to support the development of healthy work environments

(Raymond, Wood, & Patrick, 1990).

OHP has grown at a rapid rate in the last few decades that have passed since

Raymond and colleagues set in motion a new specialty. This can be seen in, among

other things, the ongoing rise in the submission rate of scientific articles to the

discipline’s dedicated academic journals , and the influence of these journals within

the broader applied psychology field; the growth in researcher, educator,

practitioner, and student attendance at international OHP conferences; the

expansion of OHP training provision in Europe and North America and across the

world; the growth in employment opportunities for OHP practitioners; and the

expansion of outlets for practitioners to publish and share best practice globally.

5
This multidisciplinary perspective, illustrated in Figure 1.2, was established at the

outset of the discipline’s existence in North America. In their seminal article,

Raymond, Wood, and Patrick (1990) called for training in a discipline that ‘would

integrate and synthesize insights, frameworks and knowledge from a diverse number

of specialties, principally health psychology and occupational

6
Summary OHP can be defined simply as ‘the contribution of applied psychology to

occupational health’. This ‘interface’ definition, adhered to in Europe, recognizes

that occupational health is a multidisciplinary area and that OHP practitioners offer a

focused specialization that they may usefully apply within multidisciplinary teams.

The North American perspective on OHP is in large part consistent with the

European approach, but differs in that it encompasses psychological perspectives

alongside those from other occupational sciences.

Despite definitional differences, there is little doubt that advocates for OHP the

world over unanimously endorse the aforementioned vision for OHP delineated by

7
Quick et al. (1997). Likewise, most would agree with the high-level characteristics

posited by Cox et al. (2000) as defining the discipline.

These include acknowledgement that OHP is:

(a) an applied science,

(b) evidence driven,

(c) oriented towards problem solving,

(d) multidisciplinary,

(e) participatory,

(f) focused on intervention, with an emphasis on primary prevention (see

Definition 1.1), and

(g) operational within a legal framework.

So Health and well-being can be described as the absence of physical

illness,disease and mental distress. This is a negative definition of health and

8
well-being. - health and well-being can also be described as the achievement and

maintenance of physical fitness and mental stability.

In simple terms, well-being can be described as judging life positively and feeling

good. For public health purposes, physical well-being (e.g., feeling very healthy

and full of energy) is also viewed as critical to overall well-being.

Workplace Wellbeing relates to all aspects of working life, from the quality and

safety of the physical environment, to how workers feel about their work, their

working environment, the climate at work and work organization. ... Workers

well-being is a key factor in determining an organisation's long-term effectiveness.

Enterprises and organizations are increasingly recognising the need to take the

well-being of their workers seriously. The more progressive organizations are

doing so because they appreciate that their most important resources are their

human resources - their people.

Other organizations are beginning to address well-being issues because it is

becoming increasingly clear that many workplace problems draw from a lack of

commitment to the needs of their workers.

9
A lack of recognition of the need to promote workers well-being may give rise to

workplace problems, such as stress, bullying, conflict, alcohol and drug abuse and

mental health disorders. Potential solutions, such as leadership, communication and

a focus on learning and development are essential for anyone committed to making

the workplace a more decent and satisfying place. It had become fairly common in

some industrialized countries, often under the stimulus of legislative measures, to

adopt programmes targeting specific health problems in the workplace as a

complement to traditional safety and health measures. There has been a growing

trend for the development of global health promotion policies by employers and

their partners covering a whole range of lifestyle issues including smoking, diet,

exercise and mental well-being.

Who is involved in well being?

The people involved in Health and wellbeing could be the following: directors and

managers, HR managers, trade unions, employers' associations, OSH professionals

and national institutions responsible for the health and well-being of workers.

10
As we have seen, the beginning of the 20th century featured an understanding of

health that was dominated by a biomedical perspective, characterized by a

reductionist point of view in which health was defined as the absence of illness.

This view has long been replaced by a biopsychosocial model that emphasizes the

role played by socio-cultural forces in the shaping of health (and illness) and

related psychological experiences (Engel, 1977). In 1948, the World Health

Organization (WHO) defined health as a complete state of physical, mental and

social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, calling

attention to the complexity and multidimensionality of the concept. Adding social

well-being to the definition opened the way to conceptualizing the individual as a

social being, with health being about more than mere physiology.

This shift in the definition of health and the factors responsible for disease

prevention and health promotion is mirrored by a shift in the study of health and

illness in disciplines such as psychology that have traditionally focused on the

individual as the unit of analysis and the force primarily responsible for avoiding

disease and promoting well-being. In more recent psychological approaches to

health and illness, individuals are increasingly viewed as part of a larger network

11
of forces, significantly influenced by their socio-cultural environments (e.g.,

Helman, 2007; Gurung, 2010).

Cultural aspects in occupational health and well being.

Developing a culturally sensitive and meaningful understanding of health and

illness is important for both theoretical and applied reasons. From a theoretical

standpoint, psychological models designed to understand health and illness are

typically developed in the western parts of the world and tested with local

participants. Models can be expanded, modified, and improved by studying their

generalizability across cultural groups. This exercise improves the validity of the

12
scientific study of human psychology and thus enables models to develop and test

culturally meaningful predictions.

Incorporating culture into the study of health and illness is also important from an

applied standpoint. For example, developing interventions to improve health via

promotive, preventive, curative, or rehabilitative activities is virtually impossible if

this exercise is stripped of cultural knowledge. Further, health disparities, for

example in the form of discrimination and prejudice in health care settings or vast

differences in prevalence rates of certain diseases between different groups in a

society, may be understood and tackled by having a better understanding of the

cultural bases of such problems.

In their article Culture and Health Psychology: Insights from a Socio-Cultural

Perspective, Uskul and Sherman (2010) explain that ‘In individualistic cultures,

such as the United Kingdom or the United States, the dominant model of the self is

an independent self characterized by self-defining attributes which serve to fulfil

personal autonomy and self-expression. People are seen as agentic and thus

responsible for their own decisions and actions.’

13
In cultures shaped by individualism, individuals favour not missing chances over

not making mistakes, focusing on the positive outcomes they hope to approach

rather than the negative outcomes they hope to avoid. Relationships are seen as

freely chosen and relatively easy to enter and exit.

By contrast, in collectivistic cultures, such as many East Asian cultures, the

dominant model is an interdependent self embedded within the social context and

defined by social relations and memberships in groups. People are seen as

relational or communal and their decisions and actions are seen as heavily

influenced by social, mutual obligations and the fulfilment of in-group

expectations In such cultures, individuals tend to be motivated to fit in with their

group and maintain social harmony; they focus on their responsibilities and

obligations while trying to avoid behaviours that might cause social disruptions or

disappoint significant others. They favour not making mistakes over not missing

chances, focusing on the negative outcomes they hope to avoid rather than the

positive outcomes they hope to achieve.

14
So far, the evidence suggests that socio-cultural environments play an important role

in health and illness-related outcomes. Importantly, research shows that

socio-cultural factors can shape psychological constructs such as the factors that

determine how people respond to health messages and use their social support

networks as well as how illness-related thoughts are shaped and when behaviour is

likely to change -- issues commonly tackled by psychological models of health

behaviour. It is therefore essential that existing models of health behaviour are tested

cross-culturally and modified accordingly. Increasing the understanding of the role of

culture in health and illness would also help developing culturally sensitive and

effective ways of preventing and curing disease. Despite the growing amount of

research on culture and health and the preliminary attempts to collate the vast amount

of knowledge accumulated in the hitherto disconnected subfields of cultural and

health psychology, more research is certainly required which will help researchers,

practitioners, and lay people acquire a better understanding of how the psychological

experiences of illness and health are shaped by individuals’ socio-cultural

environment.

15
Summary

OHP can be defined simply as ‘the contribution of applied psychology to

occupational health’. This ‘interface’ definition, adhered to in Europe, recognizes

that occupational health is a multidisciplinary area and that OHP practitioners offer a

focused specialization that they may usefully apply within multidisciplinary teams.

The North American perspective on OHP is in large part consistent with the

European approach, but differs in that it encompasses psychological perspectives

alongside those from other occupational sciences. (Houdmont & Leka, 2010)

16
References

Cox, S. J., & Cheyne, A. J. T. (2000). Assessing safety culture in offshore

environments. Safety science, 34(1-3), 111-129.

Gurung, R. A. R. (2010). Health psychology: A cultural approach (2nd ed.).

Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Houdmont J, & S. Leka (2010). Occupational health psychology: European

perspectives on research, education, and practice (Vol. III) (pp. 27–62),
Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.

Houdmont, J., Leka, S., & Bulger, C. (2010). The definition of curriculum areas in
occupational health psychology. European Academy of Occupational Health
Psychology Newsletter, 7, 3–5 (February).

Innes, M., & Barling, J. (2003). Putting health back into occupational health
psychology. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Occupational
Psychology Conference, Bournemouth, UK (January). Johnson, J., & Johansson, G.
(1991). The psychosocial work environment: Work organization, democratization and
health. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

Kahn, R. L. (1964). Work and Health. New York: Wiley. Kang, S. Y., Staniford, A.
K., Dollard, M. F., & Kompier, M. (2008). Knowledge development and content in

17
occupational health psychology: A systematic analysis of the Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology and Work & Stress, 1996–2006).

Leka, S., Khan, S., & Griffiths, A. (2008). Exploring health and safety practitioners’
training needs in workplace health issues. Wigston, UK: Institution of Occupational
Safety and Health. Levi, L. (1972).

Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J., & Nelson, D. (2007). Advances in occupational health:
From a stressful beginning to a positive future. Journal of Management, 33, 809–840.

Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency, Boston: Houghton

Mifflin. This book provides a fascinating insight into hopes and ambitions for the
development of the field by one of the pioneers of research related to OHP. It is out of
copyright, and it can be downloaded free of charge at
www.gutenberg.org/etext/15154.

O’Toole, J., & Lawler, E. (2006). The new American workplace. NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Quick, J. C. (1999). Occupational health psychology: The convergence of health and

clinical psychology with public health and preventive medicine in an organizational
context. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 50, 123–128.

18
Quick, J. C., Camara, W. J., Hurrell, J. J., Jr., Johnson, J. V., Piotrkowski, C. S.,
Sauter, S. L., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Introduction and historical overview.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 3–6.

Quinn, R., & Shepard, L. (1974). The 1972–73 quality of employment survey. Ann
Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Quinn, R. & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor:
Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Raymond, J., Wood, D., & Patrick, W. (1990). Psychology training in work and
health. American Psychologist, 45, 1159–1161. Sauter, S., & Hurrell, J. (1999).
Occupational health psychology: Origins, content and direction. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 117–122.

Raymond, J. S., Wood, D. W., & Patrick, W. K. (1990). Psychology doctoral training
in work and health. American Psychologist, 45(10), 1159–1161.

Sauter, S., Murphy, L., & Hurrell, J. (1990). Prevention of work-related psychological
disorders: A national strategy proposed by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). American Psychologist, 45, 1146–1158.

Sinclair, R. (2009). The future of OHP: The experts speak (Part I). Society for
Occupational Health Psychology Newsletter, 5, 11–13 (January).

19
Sinclair, R., Hammer, L., Oeldorf Hirsch, A., & Brubaker, T. (2006). Do academics
and practitioners agree on perceived occupational health priorities? Paper presented at
the Work Stress and Health conference, Miami, FL (March).

Theorell, T. (1999). How to deal with stress in organizations? A health perspective on

theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 6,
616–624. Theorell, T. (2007). Psychosocial factors in research on work conditions and
health in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 33, suppl
1, 20–26.

Ursin, H., Baade, E., & Levine, S. (1978). Psychobiology of stress: A study of coping
men. New York: Academic Press.

Webography

Adkins 99:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-foundations-of-North-American-OHP-Fro
m-Adkins-1999-Adapted-with-permission_fig1_28693189

Engel 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model

Definitions:https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/medical-so
ciology-policy-economics/4a-concepts-health-illness/section2/activity3

20
Uskul, Ayse K. (2010) Socio-cultural aspects of health and illness.
https://www.in-mind.org/article/culture-and-health-psychology-insights-from-a-soci
o-cultural-perspective

21