Anda di halaman 1dari 34

Rantanen Jorma, Kauppinen Timo, Lehtinen Suvi, Mattila Marjaana, Toikkanen Jouni, Kurppa Kari,

Leino Timo: Work and health country profiles of twenty-two European Countries. People and Work Research Reports 52. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki 2002, pp. 121-138.

Country profile: Finland

Jorma Rantanen, Timo Kauppinen, Suvi Lehtinen, Jouni Toikkanen, Kari Kurppa, Timo
Leino
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Basic information on Finland and its health system


Area and population

Finland has been an independent republic since 6 December 1917. The population of
Finland is 5.1 million and the area 338,000 km2 (population density 15 per km2). 63%
of the population live in urban areas. The capital city is Helsinki (540,000 habitants),
and the official languages are Finnish (spoken by 93% of the population) and Swedish
(6%). The country is divided into five provinces and 455 municipalities.
Table 1. Population statistics of Finland in 1998
Population (million)
Men (%)
Women (%)

5.160
48.8
51.2

Labour force (million)


Employed (million)
Men (%)
Women (%)
Unemployed (million)
Unemployment (%)
Live births per 1,000 population
Deaths per 1,000 population

2.507
2.222
52.8
47.2
0.285
11.4
11.1
9.6

SOURCES: Labour force survey 1998. Population statistics. Statistics Finland, Helsinki, 1999.

Economy
Table 2. Selected economic indicators of Finland
Gross national product (GNP) per capita (in USD) in 1996
Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (purchasing power parity
in USD) in 1994
GDP produced by agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing (%)
GDP produced by industry and construction (%)
GDP produced by services (%)
Export as % of GDP
Import as % of GDP
Inflation rate (%)

Finland
23,240
17,417
4.4
35.4
60.2
37.7
29.7
1.2

SOURCES: Health in Europe 1997, WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No 83, annex 1.
FINLAND: GDP (%) figures from Statistical Yearbook Finland, Helsinki 1998.
The Finnish economy has improved continuously after an economic recession in the early
1990s. In 1997, Finland imported mainly mechanical appliances (15%), electrical machinery
and equipment (14%), mineral fuels and oils (10%) and automobiles and bicycles (8%). The
major export commodities were paper and paperboard (21%), electrical machinery and equipment (18%), mechanical appliances (14%) and wood and wood articles (6%).

Labour force
Table 3. The employed by industry in Finland in 1997
Industry

N
(1, 000)
150
2
6
436

Agriculture, hunting and forestry


Fishing
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing

%
7
0.1
0.3
20

Electricity, gas and water supply


Construction
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods
Hotels and restaurants
Transport, storage and communication
Financial intermediation
Real estate, renting and business activities
Public administration
Education
Health and social work
Other community, social and personal service activities
Private households with employed persons
Extra-territorial organizations and bodies
Not classifiable
TOTAL

22
130
263

1
6
12

66
164
48
192
133
146
310
116
4
7
0
2,195

3
7
2
9
6
7
14
5
0.2
0.3
0
99.9

SOURCES: ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics 1998.

Public health and health care system


Table 4. Health statistics
Life expectancy (years) at birth in 1997
Men
Women
Infant mortality per 1,000 live births in 1996
Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1993
Standardised death rate (SDR), cardiovascular diseases, 064 years
/100,000 in [latest year]
Standardised death rate (SDR), cancer, 064 years / 100,000 in 1993
Standardised death rate (SDR), external causes of injury and poisoning,
064 years /100,000 in 1993
Standardised death rate (SDR), suicide and self-inflicted injury, 064
years /100,000 in 1993
Human development index, in 1994
Total health expenditure (% of gross domestic product) in 1996
Physicians per 1,000 population
Dentists per 1,000 population
Nurses per 1,000 population

73.4
80.5
4.0
4.1
81.7
66.8
79.3
26.5
0.94
7.5
3.0
1.0
10.6

SOURCES: Health in Europe 1997, WHO Regional Publication, European Series, No 83, annex
1. Eurostat.
Life expectancy (1997) and numbers of registered physicians, dentists and nurses (1997) from
Statistical Yearbook of Finland 1998, Helsinki 1998.
REMARKS: The human development index measures the average achievements in a country in three
basic dimensions of human development: longevity, knowledge and, a decent standard of living.

Table 5. Indicators of health system attainment and performance in WHO Member


States in 1997
Measure

Indicator

Health level
(DALE)
Health distribution

Attainment of health level goals (rank


among 191 WHO countries in 1997)
Attainment of health distribution goals
(rank among 191 WHO countries in
1997)
Attainment of goals on level of responsiveness (rank among 191 WHO countries in 1997)
Attainment of goals on distribution of
responsiveness (rank among 191 WHO
countries in 1997)
Attainment of goals on fairness in financial contribution (rank among 191 WHO
countries in 1997)
Overall goal attainment (rank among 191
WHO countries in 1997)
Health expenditure per capita in international dollars (rank among 191 WHO
countries in 1997)
Health system performance on level of
health (rank among 191 WHO countries
in 1997)

Level of responsiveness
Distribution of
responsiveness
Fairness in financial contribution
Overall goal
attainment
Health expenditure
Health system
performance
on level of
health
Overall health
system performance

Overall health system performance (rank


among 191 WHO countries in 1997)

Definition
Unit
of indicator
see source
see source

see source

see source

see source

see source

see source

see source

see source

SOURCE: World Health Report 2000 (www.who.int/whr/2000/en/report.htm).

Table 6. Data for health system attainment and performance in WHO Member States in
1997
Measure
Health level (DALE)
Health distribution
0
Level of responsiveness

Country
Index country: Finland
Best WHO country: Japan
Worst WHO country: Sierra Leone
Index country: Finland
Best WHO country: Chile
Worst WHO country: Liberia
Index country: Finland
Best WHO country: United States of
America
Worst WHO country: Somalia

Rank
20
1
191
27
1
191
19
1
191

Distribution of responsiveness

Fairness in financial
contribution
Overall goal attainment
Health expenditure

Health system performance on level of


health
Overall health system
performance

Index country: Finland

20.5

Best WHO country: United Arab Emirates


Worst WHO country: Central African Republic
Index country: Finland

1
191

Best WHO country: Colombia


Worst WHO country: Sierra Leone
Index country: Finland

1
191
22

Best WHO country: Japan


Worst WHO country: Sierra Leone
Index country: Finland
Best WHO country: United States of
America
Worst WHO country: Somalia
Index country: Finland

1
191
18
1

Best WHO country: Oman


Worst WHO country: Zimbabwe
Index country: Finland

1
191
31

Best WHO country: France


Worst WHO country: Sierra Leone

1
191

SOURCE: World Health Report 2000 (www.who.int/whr/2000/en/report.htm).

9.5

191
44

Indicators of prerequisites of occupational health and safety


Infrastructure of OH&S
OH&S system

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AUTHORITIES


Advisory committee on
labour protection

Municipal boards of labour


protection - Permit section

*
*
*
*

Regulations
Enforcement
Inspection
Directions

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health


Dept. for occupational
safety and health

Social Insurance Institute

Dept. for promotion of


health and welfare

Advisory committee
on occupational health
services

Occupational safety and


health inspectorates
- 11 districts
* Guidelines
* Statements
* Consultations
* Monitoring

*
*
*
*

Training
Information
Registers
Funding

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Safety Technology Authority
Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety
National Public Health Institute
National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health
National Product Control Agency for Welfare

Safety delegates

WORKPLACE

Safety representatives
Occupational safety committee

LABOUR MARKET ACTIVITIES

Employer
Employee

Occupational safety superviser

RESEARCH AND SERVICE UNITS

State advisory
committee
on occupational health
and safety matters

Labour market organisations

Occupational health care personnel

Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health
- 6 regional institutes

Centre for Occupational Safety

The Finnish Work


Environment Fund

Technical Research
Centre of Finland

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

Institutions of higher education

Consultations
Training
Information
Register of occupational
safety personnel

Research grants
Grant for applied research
Scholarships
State grant for occupational
safety (State administration)
* Agreements (State administration)

*
*
*
*

Research
Expert services
Measurements
Statements

REFERENCE: Occupational health and safety organization of Finland (leaflet).

Universities
Private research
institutes
Federation of
Accident Insurance
Institutions
* Education
* Information
* Statistics

OH service models
The following five models were used for occupational health (OH) services until January 1996: (1) the municipal health care center model, (2) companies in-plant services
(integrated model), (3) group services for several small or medium-sized enterprises
(joint model), (4) regional service units of the state (structure similar to that of group
services), and (5) private medical center model.
Enterprise

Enterprise

Self-employed
Municipal health
care centre
Enterprises 65%
Employees 40%
OHS units 29%

Farmers

Enterprise

Enterprise
Enterprises 2%
Employees 28%
OHS units 43%

OHS
unit

Enterprise

Enterprise
Enterprises
Employees
OHS units

4%
6%
6%

Enterprise
Joint model OHS unit
Enterprise

Enterprise

Enterprises
Employees
OHS units

29%
26%
22%

Private medical
centre

Enterprise

Enterprise

REFERENCE: Rantanen J. Role of occupational health services in the improvement of workers'


health. Presentation held in New Trends and Developments in OHS, 36 October 1989. Also in:
Rantanen J. Hyv tyterveyshuoltokytnt. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki
1997, and Rsnen K, et al. In: Kauppinen et al. (Eds.) Work and health in Finland in 2000 (in
Finnish), Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki 2000.

Legislation and coverage of OH&S


Table 7. Indicators of legislation and coverage of OH&S
Factor
ILO ratification

Indicator
Proportion of ILO
conventions on
OH&S ratified

Coverage
of accident
insurance

Proportion of the
employed covered
by accident insurance
Proportion of the
employed covered
by occupational
health services

Coverage
of occupational
health care

Definition of indicator
Proportion of ILO conventions relevant to OH&S (N = 22) which a
country has ratified until present (0
100%)
Proportion of the employed covered
by compulsory or voluntary accident
insurance including insurance against
occupational diseases (0100%)
Proportion of the employed covered
by compulsory or voluntary occupational health services (0100%)

Unit
%

Table 8. Statistics on legislation and coverage of OH&S

ILO ratification

Coverage of accident insurance


Coverage of occupational health
services

Country

Year

Index country: Finland


Best ILO country: Sweden
Worst ILO country: many
Index country: Finland

2002
2002
2002
1998

Index country: Finland

1997

N Value of
indicator
18
82
18
82
0
0
91

Unit
%
%
%
%

87 %

SOURCES: http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/english/.
REMARKS: The 22 ILO Conventions relevant to OH&S are Conventions No. 13, 81, 115, 119, 121, 127,
129, 133, 134, 136, 139, 148, 152, 155, 161, 162, 164, 167, 170, 174, 176, and 184. From these, Finland
has ratified Conventions No. 13, 81, 115, 119, 121, 129, 133, 134, 136, 139, 148, 152, 155, 161, 162, 164,
167 and 176.

Human resources in OH&S


Table 9. Indicators of occupational health and safety personnel
Indicator
Human resources in labour
safety inspection
Human resources in labour
safety at workplaces
Human resources in occupational health services

Definition of indicator
Number of all types of labour safety inspectors (full-time equivalents) per 1,000
employed workers
Number of safety representatives of
workers and safety managers (full-time
equivalents) at workplaces per 1,000 employed workers
Number of physicians and nurses (fulltime equivalents) in occupational health
services per 1,000 employed workers

Unit
/1,000
employed
/1,000
employed
/1,000
employed

Table 10A. Statistics on occupational health and safety personnel in Finland


Professional group

Year

N involved
including
part-time
workers

N as fulltime
equivalents

Value of
indicator

Unit

Occupational health
physicians

1998

8851

0.40 /1,000 employed

Occupational health
nurses

1998

1,6921

0.76 /1,000 employed

Occupational physiotherapists

1998

2991

0.13 /1,000 employed

Occupational hygienists

1998

1502

0.07 /1,000 employed

Labour safety inspectors

1998

3603

0.16 /1,000 employed

Enterprise safety managers

1998

10,2084

4.6 /1,000 employed

Safety representatives of
employees

1998

13,5694

6.1 /1,000 employed

Other professional group,


which:

/1,000 employed

Other professional group,

/1,000 em-

which:
Other professional group,
which:

employed
/1,000 employed

Other professional group,


which:

/1,000 employed

SOURCES: Occupational health services in Finland 1997. Institute of Occupational Health.


Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Helsinki 1998. Annual Report of the Occupational Safety
and health Administration 1998.
REMARK ON FINNISH SITUATION:
(1) Full-time equivalents; The number of posts in occupational health services in 1998 was 1799
for occupational physicians, 1930 for occupational nurses, 589 for physiotherapists, 198 for
psychologists and 849 for assisting personnel. (2) The figures for occupational hygienists and
occupational hygiene technicians are estimates based on membership in the Finnish Occupational Hygiene Association. Safety engineers and technicians are not included. (3) Those directly involved in workplace safety inspections; Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) employs 540 persons, of whom 460 work in inspectorates. Some 90 experts work in
the central administration. (4) The figures are from the statistics of the Register of Occupational
Safety Personnel 1998. Registration is obligatory for private enterprises and for municipalities,
but excludes public (state) administration.

Table 10B. Key activities (functions) in O&H system. Alternative terms are presented
(the most commonly used in bold).
Process
Workplace surveys, workplace visits, exposure
assessment, risk assessment and management
Health examinations, health surveillance (general
& risk-based)
Workplace health promotion, health education,
counselling
Assessment of work ability, rehabilitation

YES, on
YES, on
compulsory voluntary
basis
basis
X
X

X
X
X

Curative services
First aid, accident management

Education, training, information campaigns

Quality assurance of OH processes, audits

Safety inspections

Initiatives and advice for management of workplace safety and health; safe workplace design

10

NO

11

Indicators of working conditions


Physicochemical exposures
Table 11. Indicators of physicochemical exposures (from European Working Conditions
Survey)
Agent
High-level
noise

Vibration

Radiation

High temperatures

Indicator
Prevalence of exposure to high
level noise among
the employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
How often are you exposed at work to
each of the following? Noise so loud that
you would have to raise your voice to talk
to people (all of the time, almost all of the
time, around 3/4 of the time, around half of
the time, around 1/4 of the time, almost
never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Prevalence of exQuestion in survey:
posure to vibration How often are you exposed at work to
among the emeach of the following? Vibration from
ployed
hand tools, machinery, etc. (all of the time,
almost all of the time, around 3/4 of the
time, around half of the time, around 1/4 of
the time, almost never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Prevalence of exQuestion in survey:
posure to radiation How often are you exposed at work to
among the emeach of the following? Radiation such as
ployed
X-rays, radioactive radiation, welding
light, laser beams (all of the time, almost
all of the time, around 3/4 of the time,
around half of the time, around 1/4 of the
time, almost never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Prevalence of exQuestion in survey:
posure to high
How often are you exposed at work to
temperatures
each of the following? High temperature
among the emwhich makes you perspire even when not
ployed
working (all of the time, almost all of the
time, around 3/4 of the time, around half of
the time, around 1/4 of the time, almost
never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time

12

Unit
%

Low temperatures

Prevalence of exposure to low


temperatures
among the employed

Breathing in
vapours

Prevalence of
breathing in vapours among the
employed

Handling
dangerous
substances

Prevalence of
handling dangerous goods among
the employed

Question in survey:
%
How often are you exposed at work to
each of the following? Low temperatures
whether indoors or outdoors (all of the
time, almost all of the time, around 3/4 of
the time, around half of the time, around
1/4 of the time, almost never, never, don't
know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Question in survey:
%
How often are you exposed at work to
each of the following? Breathing in vapours, fumes, dust, or dangerous substances such as chemicals, infectious materials, etc. (all of the time, almost all of the
time, around 3/4 of the time, around half of
the time, around 1/4 of the time, almost
never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Question in survey:
%
How often are you exposed at work to
each of the following? Handling or touching dangerous products or substances (all
of the time, almost all of the time, around
3/4 of the time, around half of the time,
around 1/4 of the time, almost never,
never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time

Table 12. Data for indicators of physicochemical exposures (Second European Working
Conditions Survey 1997)
Agent

Country

High-level noise

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: Italy
Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: The Netherlands
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Portugal
Worst EU country: Austria
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Sweden
Worst EU country: Greece

Vibration

Radiation
High temperatures

13

Value of
indicator
39
21
39
26
13

Unit

37
8
3
9
20
14
40

%
%
%
%
%
%
%

%
%
%
%
%

Low temperatures

Breathing in vapours
Handling dangerous
substances

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: Germany,
West
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Denmark
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland

19
17

%
%

44
34
15
47
18

%
%
%
%
%

Best EU country: Germany,


East
Worst EU country: Greece

10

32

Table 13. Indicators of use of asbestos (Tossavainen and Takahashi 2000) and pesticides at work (FAO database on pesticide consumption)
Agent
Asbestos
Pesticides

Indicator
Consumption of asbestos per capita per
year
Consumption of pesticides per agricultural worker per year

Definition of indicator
Reported consumption of
asbestos per capita

Unit
kg/capita/y

Consumption of pesticides
per agricultural worker as
reported to FAO

kg/agricultural
worker/y

Table 14. Data for indicators of use of asbestos (Tossavainen and Takahashi 2000) and
of pesticides at work (FAO database on pesticide consumption)
Agent

Country

Asbestos

Index country: Finland


Best country: many
Worst country: Russia
Index country: Finland
Best country: Laos?
Worst country: Belgium-Lux

Pesticides

Value of
indicator
0
0
3.4
12
0
181

Unit
kg/capita/y
kg/capita/y
kg/capita/y
kg/agr worker/y
kg/agr worker/y
kg/agr worker/y

SOURCES: Tossavainen A, Takahashi K. Epidemiological trends for asbestos-related cancers.


In: Tossavainen et al. (Eds) New advances in radiology and screening of asbestos-related diseases. Proceedings of the international expert meeting. 911 February 2000, Espoo, Finland.
People and Work, Research Reports 36. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki
2000.
FAO. Database of pesticide consumption (http://apps.fao.org/page/collections).

14

Table 15. Indicators of harm due to physicochemical exposures (Finnish Work and
Health Surveys 1997 and 2000, Piirainen et al. 1997 and 2000)
Agent
Noise

Vibration

Dust

Solvents

Detergents
etc.

Gases, exhausts

Environmental tobacco
smoke

Indicator
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
noise among
the employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
vibration
among the
employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
dust among
the employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
solvents
among the
employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
detergents etc.
among the employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
gases, exhausts
among the employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
environmental
tobacco smoke
among the employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
Does noise occur in your work? (yes, no) Is noise
harmful in your work (no, to some extent, rather
harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful
Question in survey:
Does vibration occur in your work? (yes, no) Is
vibration harmful in your work (no, to some extent, rather harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful

Unit
%

Question in survey:
Does dust occur in your work? (yes, no) Is dust
harmful in your work (no, to some extent, rather
harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful
Question in survey:
Do solvents occur in your work? (yes, no) Are
solvents harmful in your work (no, to some extent,
rather harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful

Question in survey:
Do detergents etc. occur in your work? (yes, no)
Are detergents etc. harmful in your work (no, to
some extent, rather harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful

Question in survey:
Do gases, exhausts occur in your work? (yes, no)
Are gases, exhausts harmful in your work (no, to
some extent, rather harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful

Question in survey:
Does environmental tobacco smoke occur in
your work? (yes, no) Is environmental tobacco
smoke harmful in your work (no, to some extent,
rather harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful

15

Cold, heat
or draught

Inadequate
lighting

Mouldy
smell

Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
cold, heat or
draught among
the employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
inadequate
lighting among
the employed
Prevalence of
harm due to
exposure to
mouldy smell
among the employed

Question in survey:
%
Does cold, heat or draught occur in your work?
(yes, no) Is cold, heat or draught harmful in your
work (no, to some extent, rather harmful, very
harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful
Question in survey:
%
Does inadequate lighting occur in your work?
(yes, no) Is inadequate lighting harmful in your
work (no, to some extent, rather harmful, very
harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful
Question in survey:
%
Does mouldy smell occur in your work? (yes,
no) Is mouldy smell harmful in your work (no, to
some extent, rather harmful, very harmful)
Included if rather or very harmful

Table 16. Data for indicators of harm due to physicochemical exposures in Finland
Agent
Noise
Vibration
Dust
Solvents
Detergents, etc.
Gases, exhausts
Environmental tobacco
smoke
Cold, heat or draught
Inadequate lighting
Mouldy smell

Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

Value
10.4
2.1
10.4
2.3
2.6
2.2
2

2000
2000
2000

Unit
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

16 %
4.5 %
10.8 %

16

Table 17. Indicators of occupational exposure to carcinogens (CAREX database of


FIOH)
Agent
Solar radiation

Indicator
Estimated prevalence of regular exposure to solar radiation among the
employed

Tobacco
smoke (environmental)

Estimated prevalence of regular exposure to environmental tobacco


smoke among the
employed
Estimated prevalence of exposure to
crystalline silica
among the employed

Silica, crystalline

Diesel engine
exhaust

Estimated prevalence of exposure to


diesel engine exhaust among the employed

Radon and its


decay products

Estimated prevalence of exposure to


radon and its decay
products among the
employed

Wood dust

Estimated prevalence of exposure to


wood dust among
the employed

Definition
Regular outdoor work (>75% of annual working time) is considered to
entail exposure. The figures are not
comparable from the point of view of
UV radiation dose, because the intensity of radiation varies by country.
Inhalatory exposure at work to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) due
to smoking of customers or coworkers.
Inhaling ETS (as smoke or 'smell') at
least 75% of working time is considered to entail exposure.
Inhalatory exposure at work to crystalline silica (mainly as quartz, cristobalite, tridymite or tripoli) or minerals containing crystalline silica probably exceeding nonoccupational exposure originating from road dust, beach
sand, etc. (long-term exposure level to
respirable dust usually <0.01 mg/m3).
Excludes amorphous silica and clay.
Inhalatory exposure at work to diesel
engine exhaust likely to exceed significantly the nonoccupational background level in urban air (usually <0.6
mg/m3, often <0.1 mg/m3, measured as
nitrogen dioxide).
Inhalatory exposure at work to radon222 and its decay products (e.g., radioactive polonium, lead and bismuth)
resulting in doubling of nonoccupational dose which varies by country.
Also office work indoors where radon
level is high is considered to entail exposure.
Inhalatory exposure at work to hardwood dust (e.g., oak, beech, elm, ash,
birch, most tropical woods), softwood
dust (e.g., pine, spruce, larch), woodbark dust and dusts containing wood
(e.g., plywood or particleboard dust)
probably exceeding nonoccupational
exposure from leisure-time woodworking (long-term exposure level
usually <0.1 mg/m3). Excludes exposure to pulp and paper dust.

17

Unit
%

Lead and lead


compounds,
inorganic

Estimated prevalence of exposure to


lead and inorganic
lead compounds
among the employed

Benzene

Estimated prevalence of exposure to


benzene among the
employed

Asbestos

Estimated prevalence of exposure to


asbestos among the
employed

Inhalatory exposure at work to lead,


lead alloys and lead compounds (e.g.,
lead chromate, lead oxide, lead acetate, lead naphthenate, lead tetroxide)
likely to exceed the nonoccupational
background level (often <0.1g/m3 or
<0.3 mol/l blood).
Inhalatory or dermal exposure at work
to benzene likely to exceed significantly the nonoccupational exposure
due to inhaling urban air or due to
filling in gasoline stations (long-term
exposure usually below 0.01 ppm).
Inhalatory exposure at work to any
form of asbestos (e.g., chrysotile, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, actinolite, amosite) likely to exceed significantly the nonoccupational background level in dwellings or urban air
(usually below 0.001 f/cm3).

Table 18. Data for indicators of occupational exposure to carcinogens (CAREX database of FIOH)
Agent

Country

Year

Solar radiation

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: Italy
Worst EU country:
Greece
Index country: Finlanda

19903
19903
19903

Tobacco
smoke (environmental)

Silica, crystalline

Diesel engine
exhaust

N exposed
180,000
560,000
460,000

Value of
indicator
8.6
3.3
13.7

Unit
%
%
%

2000

30,000

1.3 %

2000

30,000

1.3 %

19903

11,000

6 %

1998
2000
Best EU country: France 19903
Worst EU country: Lux- 19903
embourg
Index country: Finlanda 1998
2000
Best EU country: Fin1998
land
Worst EU country: Italy 19903

60,000

2.6 %

110,000
7,400

0.5 %
4 %

36,000

1.6 %

36,000

1.6 %

550,000

3.2 %

Best EU country: Finlanda


Worst EU country: Luxembourg
Index country: Finlanda

18

Radon and its


decay products

Wood dust

Lead and lead


compounds,
inorganic

Benzene

Asbestos

Index country: Finlanda

19903

49,000

2.3 %

Best EU country: The


Netherlands
Worst EU country:
Sweden
Index country: Finlanda

19903

0 %

19903

99,000

2.5 %

1998
2000
Best EU country: France 19903
Worst EU country:
19903
Spain
Index country: Finland
19903

52,000

2.3 %

180,000
400,000

0.8 %
3.3 %

13,000

0.6 %

19903

13,000

0.6 %

19903
1998
1998

290,000
1,600
1,600

1.7 %
0.1 %
0.1 %

19903

49,000

1.8 %

2,000
2,000

0.3 %
0.1 %

680,000

4 %

Best EU country: Finland


Worst EU country: Italy
Index country: Finlandb
Best EU country: Finlandb
Worst EU country:
Denmark
Index country: Finlandb
Best EU country: Finlandb
Worst EU country: Italy

1998
1998
19903

a Reference: FINJEM database of FIOH, June 2000


b Reference: ASA database of FIOH, June 2000
SOURCES: CAREX database of FIOH.

Physiological and ergonomic factors


Table 19. Indicators of physical and ergonomic factors (European Working Conditions
Survey)
Agent
Painful positions

Indicator
Prevalence of painful or tiring positions among the
employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
How often does your main paid job involve
each of the following? Painful or tiring positions (all of the time, almost all of the
time, around 3/4 of the time, around half of
the time, around 1/4 of the time, almost
never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time

19

Unit
%

Heavy
loads

Prevalence of carrying or moving


heavy loads among
the employed

Repetitive
hand/arm
movements

Prevalence of repetitive hand or arm


movements among
the employed

Temperature not
adjustable

Prevalence of nonadjustable temperature among the


employed

Lighting
not adjustable

Prevalence of nonadjustable lighting


among the employed

Ventilation
not adjustable

Prevalence of nonadjustable ventilation among the employed

Work station not


adjustable

Prevalence of nonadjustable position


of desk, bench or
work station among
the employed

Seat not
adjustable

Prevalence of nonadjustable seat


among the employed

Question in survey:
How often does your main paid job involve
each of the following? Carrying or moving
heavy loads (all of the time, almost all of
the time, around 3/4 of the time, around
half of the time, around 1/4 of the time, almost never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Question in survey:
How often does your main paid job involve
each of the following? Repetitive hand or
arm movements (all of the time, almost all
of the time, around 3/4 of the time, around
half of the time, around 1/4 of the time, almost never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Question in survey:
Which, if any, of the following working
conditions can you adjust personally to
your own comfort?
The temperature
Included if not adjustable
Question in survey:
Which, if any, of the following working
conditions can you adjust personally to
your own comfort?
The lighting
Included if not adjustable
Question in survey:
Which, if any, of the following working
conditions can you adjust personally to
your own comfort?
The ventilation
Included if not adjustable
Question in survey:
Which, if any, of the following working
conditions can you adjust personally to
your own comfort?
The position of your desk, bench or work
station
Included if not adjustable
Question in survey:
Which, if any, of the following working
conditions can you adjust personally to
your own comfort?
The position of your seat
Included if not adjustable

20

Equipment
not adjustable

Prevalence of nonadjustable equipment among the


employed

Question in survey:
Which, if any, of the following working
conditions can you adjust personally to
your own comfort?
The instrument(s) or equipment you use
Included if not adjustable

Table 20. Data for indicators of physical and ergonomic factors (Second European
Working Conditions Survey 1997)
Agent

Country

Painful positions

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: The Netherlands
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Luxembourg
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland

Heavy loads
Repetitive hand/arm
movements
Temperature not adjustable

Lighting not adjustable


Ventilation not adjustable
Work station not adjustable
Seat not adjustable
Equipment not adjustable

Value of Unit
indicator
45 %
28 %
68
38
24
40
79

%
%
%
%
%

Best EU country: Sweden


Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland

43 %
79 %
61 %

Best EU country: United Kingdom


Worst EU country: Italy
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Sweden
Worst EU country: Italy
Index country: Finland

49 %

Best EU country: Germany, East


Worst EU country: Italy
Index country: Finland

43 %
78 %
53 %

Best EU country: Sweden


Worst EU country: Portugal
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Sweden
Worst EU country: Portugal
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Sweden
Worst EU country: Portugal

45
79
39
31
78
43
38
75

21

70
40
27
69
62

%
%
%
%
%

%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Table 21. Indicators of harm due to physical and ergonomic factors (Finnish Work and
Health Surveys 1997 and 2000, Piirainen et al. 1997 and 2000)
Agent
Heavy
work

Lifting

Indicator
Prevalence of
physically
heavy work
among the
employed
Prevalence of
lifting among
the employed

Difficult
positions
of back

Prevalence of
difficult positions of
back among
the employed

Difficult
positions
of hands

Prevalence of
difficult positions of
hands among
the employed

Kneeling
positions

Prevalence of
kneeling positions
among the
employed
Prevalence of
hand movements requiring
power among
the employed

Hand
movement
requiring
power

Repetitive Prevalence of
hand move- repetitive
ments
hand movements except
typing
among the
employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
Is your work physically light, rather light, to some
extent heavy, rather heavy, heavy?
Included if rather or very heavy

Unit
%

Question in survey:
Does your work contain lifting, carrying, manual
holding up? (not at all, occasionally, every day or
almost everyday, many times daily, many times in
an hour)
Included if many times in an hour
Question in survey:
Do you work in a slouched position or otherwise
with back in a difficult position? (not at all, over 4
h daily, 14 h daily, less than 1 h daily, almost
every day, occasionally)
Included if at least 1 h daily
Question in survey:
Do you work one or both hands above shoulder
level or otherwise in a position where you have to
hold up your hands? (not at all, over 4 h daily, 14
h daily, less than 1 h daily, almost every day, occasionally)
Included if at least 1 h daily
Question in survey:
Do you work in kneeling positions? (not at all, over
4 h daily, 14 h daily, less than 1 h daily, almost
every day, occasionally)
Included if at least 1 h daily
Question in survey:
Does your work contain hand movements requiring
power, like screwing, carving, cutting, twisting of
cleaning cloth or milking? (not at all, over 4 h
daily, 14 h daily, less than 1 h daily, almost every
day, occasionally)
Included if at least 1 h daily
Question in survey:
Does your work contain repeating similar movements of hands many times per minute? These occur in e.g. production line and assembly work,
pricing or when moving things from an assembly
line. Typing with typewriter or computer is not
meant in this question. (not at all, over 4 h daily, 1
4 h daily, less than 1 h daily, almost every day, occasionally)
Included if at least 1 h daily

22

Regular
standing
work

Regular
sitting
work

Prevalence of
regular
standing
work among
the employed

Question in survey:
Is your work mainly walking, standing, sitting or
some of these? (sitting / walking, sitting / walking,
standing, sitting / standing / walking / standing, sitting / other)
Included if standing
Prevalence of Question in survey:
regular sitIs your work mainly walking, standing, sitting or
ting work
some of these? (sitting / walking, sitting / walking,
among the
standing, sitting / standing / walking / standing, sitemployed
ting / other)
Included if sitting

Table 22. Data for indicators of harm due to physical and ergonomic factors in Finland
Agent
Heavy work
Lifting
Difficult positions of back
Difficult positions of hands
Kneeling positions
Hand movements requiring power
Repetitive hand movements
Regular standing work
Regular sitting work

Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

Value
24.6
13.4
23.1
11.7
13.4
17.2
23
5.9
30.4

Unit
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Psychosocial factors
Table 23. Indicators of psychosocial factors (Second European Working Conditions
Survey 1997)
Agent
Working
at very
high speed

Working
to tight
deadlines

Indicator
Prevalence of
working at very
high speed
among the employed

Definition of indicator
Unit
Question in survey:
%
How often does your main paid job involve each
of the following? Working at very high speed
(all of the time, almost all of the time, around 3/4
of the time, around half of the time, around 1/4
of the time, almost never, never, don't know).
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time
Prevalence of
Question in survey:
%
working to tight How often does your main paid job involve each
deadlines among of the following? Working to tight deadlines (all
the employed
of the time, almost all of the time, around 3/4 of
the time, around half of the time, around 1/4 of
the time, almost never, never, don't know)
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time

23

Not
enough
time to do
the job

Prevalence of
lack of time to
do the job
among the employed
Rate of
Prevalence of
work not
nonchangeable
changerate of work
able
among the employed
Methods
Prevalence of
of work
nonchangeable
not change- methods of work
able
among the employed
Order of
Prevalence of
tasks not
nonchangeable
changeorder of tasks
able
among the employed
MonotoPrevalence of
nous tasks monotonous
tasks among the
employed
No assisPrevalence of
tance from lack of assiscolleagues tance from colleagues among
the employed

Question in survey:
For each of the following statements please answer Yes or No
You have enough time to get the job done

Question in survey:
Are you able, or not, to choose or change? (yes,
no)
Your speed or rate of work

Question in survey:
Are you able, or not, to choose or change? (yes,
no)
Your methods of work

Question in survey:
Are you able, or not, to choose or change? (yes,
no)
Your order of tasks

Question in survey:
%
Does your main paid job involve, or not (yes, no)
Monotonous tasks
Question in survey:
For each of the following statements please answer Yes or No
You can get assistance from colleagues if required

Table 24. Data for indicators of psychosocial factors (Second European Working Conditions Survey 1997)
Agent

Country

Working at very high speed

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: Luxembourg
Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Italy
Worst EU country: Austria
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Italy
Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Denmark
Worst EU country: Germany, East

Working to tight deadlines


Not enough time to do the job
Rate of work not changeable

24

Value of
indicator
71
37
71
72
34
76
32
12
32
28
18
37

Unit
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Methods of work not changeable


Order of tasks not changeable
Monotonous tasks

No assistance from colleagues

Index country: Finland

26 %

Best EU country: Sweden


Worst EU country: Austria
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Sweden
Worst EU country: Germany, East
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Germany, East
Worst EU country: United Kingdom
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: United Kingdom
Worst EU country: Greece

14
37
22
17
45
47
22
67

%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

10 %
6 %
32 %

Table 25. Indicators of harm due to psychosocial factors (Finnish Work and Health
Surveys 1997 and 2000, Piirainen 1997 and 2000)
Agent
Constrained atmosphere

Indicator
Prevalence of
constrained
atmosphere
among the employed

Little support from


colleagues

Prevalence of
little support
from colleagues among
the employed
Prevalence of
little support
from boss
among the employed
Prevalence of
stressful work
among the employed

Little support from


boss
Stressful
work

Hasty
work

Prevalence of
hasty work
among the employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
What kind of atmosphere do you have in your
work? Is it more constrained or unconstrained
and comfortable? (constrained, unconstrained
and comfortable)
Included if constrained
Question in survey:
Can you get support and help from your colleagues when needed? (very much, rather much,
to some extent, rather little, very little)
Included if rather or very little
Question in survey:
Can you get support and help from your boss
when needed? (very much, rather much, to
some extent, rather little, very little)
Included if rather or very little
Question in survey:
Stress means a situation, when you feel nervous
or uneasy or have sleeping difficulties because
of things bothering you all the time. Do you feel
stressed at present? (not at all, little, to some
extent, rather much, very much)
Included if rather or very much
Question in survey:
How often do you have to hurry to get your
work done? (never, rather seldom, every now
and then, rather often, very often)
Included if rather or very often

25

Unit
%

Mentally
heavy
work
Monotonous work

Mental
violence
at work

Prevalence of
mentally heavy
work among
the employed
Prevalence of
monotonous
work among
the employed
Prevalence of
mental violence at work
among the employed

Question in survey:
Is your work mentally light, rather light, to
some extent heavy, rather heavy, heavy?
Included if rather or very heavy
Question in survey:
Is your work very variable, rather variable, not
rather variable but not monotonous, rather monotonous, very monotonous
Included if rather or very monotonous
Question in survey:
Mental violence means constant, repetitive
bullying, oppressing or derogatory treatment.
Have you been before or are you at present an
object of mental violence at work? (no, yes at
present, yes before not at present)
Included if yes

Table 26. Data for indicators of harm due to psychosocial factors in Finland
Agent
Constrained atmosphere
Little support from colleagues
Little support from boss
Stressful work
Hasty work
Mentally heavy work
Monotonous work
Mental violence at work

Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

Value
20.5
4.5
15.2
13.5
44.8
34.6
7.1
4.3

26

Unit
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Working time arrangements


Table 27. Indicators of working time arrangements (Second European Working Conditions Survey 1997)

Agent
Average
working time
Shiftwork

Working at
night

Working
Sundays

Working Saturdays
Average
commuting
time
Not on flexitime

Working at
least
50h/week (%
of employed)

Indicator
Average weekly
working time in the
main job among the
employed
Prevalence of shiftwork among the employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
How many hours do you usually work
per week, in your main job?

Question in survey:
Do you work shifts (that is, sometimes
working mornings, sometimes afternoons or sometimes nights) or irregular
hours, or not? (If YES) How many
shifts? (no, not working shifts or irregular hours; yes, I work irregular
hours, but not in a shift; yes, 2 shifts;
yes, 3 shifts; yes, 4 shifts; yes, 5 shifts
and over; don't know)
Included if 2 or more shifts
Prevalence of working Question in survey:
at night among the
Normally, how many times a month do
employed
you typically work at night, say for at
least 2 hours between 10.00 pm and
05.00 am?
Included if at least once a month
Prevalence of working Question in survey:
Sundays among the
How many times a month do you typiemployed
cally work on Sundays? (1, 2, 3, 4,
none)
Included if at least once a month
Prevalence of working Question in survey:
Saturdays among the
And on Saturdays? (1, 2, 3, 4, none)
employed
Included if at least once a month
Average daily comQuestion in survey:
muting time among
How many minutes per day do you
the employed
normally spend travelling from home to
work and back in total?
Prevalence of lack of
Question in survey:
flexitime among the
For each of the following statements
employed
please answer Yes or No
You have fixed starting and finishing
times every day
Included if yes
Proportion of the em- Question in survey:
ployed who work at
How many hours do you usually work
least 50 h a week
per week, in your main job?
Included if at least 50 h/week

27

Unit
h/week

%
min/day

Table 28. Data for indicators of working time arrangements (Second European Working Conditions Survey 1997)
Agent

Country

Average working time

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: The Netherlands
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Portugal
Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Italy
Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Sweden
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Germany,
West
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Italy
Worst EU country: Germany,
East
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Greece
Worst EU country: Luxembourg
Index country: Finland

Shiftwork
Working at night
Working Saturdays
Working Sundays

Average commuting time

Not on flexitime

Working at least 50h/week


(% of employed)

Best EU country: Denmark


Worst EU country: Greece

28

Value of Unit
indicator
40 h/week
36 h/week
46
19
6
19
33
17
33
50
40
73
43
22

h/week
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

52
41
23
53

%
min/day
min/day
min/day

71 %
58 %
79 %
13 %
8 %
38 %

Life-style of the employed


Table 29. Life-style indicators of the employed (Finnish Work and Health Surveys 1997
and 2000, Piirainen et al. 1997 and 2000)
Agent
Smoking
daily

Indicator
Prevalence of smoking daily among the
employed

Drinking
alcohol at
least once a
week

Prevalence of drinking alcohol at least


once a week among
the employed

Drinking
alcohol until
drunk at
least once a
week

Prevalence of drinking alcohol until


drunk at least once a
week among the employed

Light physical training


at least 3
times/week

Prevalence of light
physical training at
least 3 times/week
among the employed

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
Do you smoke or have you smoked
earlier?
(has never smoked, smokes daily (or
has quit smoking less then 6 months
ago), smokes but not daily, has quit
smoking more than 6 months ago)
Included if smokes daily
Question in survey:
How often do you drink alcohol on
the average? Include also the times
when you drank small amounts of
alcohol, for example less than a bottle
of beer or a glass of wine (daily, 3
times a week or more often, 2 times a
week, weekly, at least once in a
month, at most few times per year,
never)
Included if at least once a week
Question in survey:
How often do you drink alcohol until
drunk? (daily, 3 times a week or more
often, 2 times a week, weekly, at least
once in a month, at most few times
per year, never)
Included if at least once a week
Question in survey:
How often do you take on average
light exercise, such as walking, cycling or other practical exercise, during your leisure time at least half an
hour which may consist of several
periods? (3 or more times a week, 1
2 times a week, 13 times a month,
few times per year or less, cannot
say)
Included if 3 or more times a week

29

Unit
%

Heavy
physical
training at
least 3
times/week

Prevalence of heavy
physical training at
least 3 times/week
among the employed

No meals
during
workday

Prevalence of no
meals during workday among the employed

Question in survey:
%
How often do you take on average
during your leisure time at least half
an hour such exercise that you become breathless or you sweat? (3 or
more times a week, 12 times a week,
13 times a month, few times per
year or less, cannot say)
Included if 3 or more times a week
Question in survey:
%
Where do you normally eat during
the work day? (at home, in a restaurant or a bar, in the staff canteen, own
lunch, other, dont eat at all)
Included if dont eat at all

Table 30. Data on life-style of the employed in Finland


Agent
Smoking daily
Drinking alcohol at least once a week
Drinking alcohol until drunk at least once a
week
Light physical training at least 3 times/week
Heavy physical training at least 3 times/week
No meals during workday

Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

Value
24.5
50.7
7.8

Unit
%
%
%

50.6 %
41.6 %
3.8 %

Indicators of occupational health and safety outcomes


Accidents at work and occupational diseases
Table 31. Indicators of work accidents and occupational diseases in Finland
Agent
Fatal work
accidents

Indicator
Annual incidence of
fatal accident or traffic accident at work

Injury at
work or
when commuting

Annual incidence of
injury at work or
when commuting
among the employed

Definition of indicator
Cases of fatal accidents and traffic
accidents at work per 100,000 employees; does not include commuting accidents and fatal health
problems at work
Question in survey:
Have you been injured at work or
when commuting during the last
12 months?
Included if yes

30

Unit
Cases per
100,000
employees
%

Injury
causing disability of at
least 3 days

Compensated workplace accidents


Commuting
accidents
Serious
work accidents causing disability of over
30 days
Notified occupational
diseases
Repetitive
stress injuries
Noiseinduced
hearing
losses
Respiratory
allergies
Skin diseases

Annual incidence of
injury at work or
when commuting
causing disability of
at least 3 days among
the employed

Question in survey:
Have you been injured at work or
when commuting during the last
12 months? Did the (latest) injury
cause disability? If yes, how many
work days did you have to be absent? (no injury during the last 12
months, no disability, less than 3
days, 330 days, over 30 days)
Included if at least 3 days
Annual incidence of
Accidents of salaried workers at
accidents at workworkplace, or in work site outside
place compensated by workplace (accident insurance
insurance companies compulsory for all salaried workers, voluntary for the selfemployed)
Annual incidence of
Accidents of salaried workers
commuting accidents when commuting between the
compensated by inresidence and workplace
surance companies
Annual incidence of
Serious accident refers to work
serious work accidisability of at least 30 days or fadents compensated by tality
insurance companies

Annual incidence of
Diseases predominantly caused by
occupational diseases occupational exposure to physical,
notified by physicians chemical, microbiological or ergonomic factors
Annual incidence of
Includes mainly cases of epiconrepetitive stress inju- dylitis and tenosynovitis
ries notified by physicians
Annual incidence of
Includes mainly noise-induced
noise-induced hearhearing loss found in audiometric
ing losses notified by tests
physicians
Annual incidence of
Includes mainly cases of asthma,
respiratory allergies
allergic rhinitis and allergic alveonotified by physicians litis
Annual incidence of
Includes mainly cases of toxic or
skin diseases notified allergic eczema
by physicians

Cases per
10,000
employed

31

Cases per
10 million
hours

Cases per
million
hours
Cases per
million
hours

Cases per
10,000
employed
Cases per
10,000
employed
Cases per
10,000
employed
Cases per
10,000
employed

Table 32. Data on indicators of accidents at work and occupational diseases in Finland
Agent
Fatal work accidents

Year
1999

Injury at work or when commuting


Injury causing disability of at least 3 days
Compensated workplace accidents, any length of
disability (wage-earners only)
Commuting accidents causing disability of at least
3 days (wage-earners only)
Serious work accidents causing disability of over
30 days (wage-earners only)
Notified occupational diseases

2000
2000
1999

Repetitive stress injuries

2000

Noise-induced hearing losses

2000

Respiratory allergies

2000

Skin diseases

2000

1999
1999
2000

Value Unit
2.2 Cases per
100,000 employed
9.1 %
4.3 %
29.8 Cases per million hours
2.9 Cases per million hours
2.6 Cases per million hours
2.1 Cases per
10,000 employed
6.4 Cases per
10,000 employed
3.6 Cases per
10,000 employed
2.4 Cases per
10,000 employed
3.9 Cases per
10,000 employed

Work ability
Table 33. Indicators of work ability (Finnish Work and Health Surveys 1997 and 2000,
Piirainen et al. 1997 and 2000)
Agent
Very good
physical
work ability

Indicator
Prevalence of respondents with
very good physical
work ability

Very good
Prevalence of remental work spondents with
ability
very good mental
work ability

Definition of indicator
Unit
Question in survey:
%
Is your current work ability compared to
the physical demands of your current
(latest) work very good, rather good,
moderate, rather poor, very poor?
Included if very good
Question in survey:
%
Is your current work ability compared to
the mental demands of your current
(latest) work very good, rather good,
moderate, rather poor, very poor?
Included if very good

32

Table 34. Data for indicators of work ability in Finland


Agent
Very good physical work ability
Very good mental work ability

Year
2000
2000

Value Unit
33.7 %
28.8 %

Work-related health problems


Table 35. Indicators of work-related health problems (Second European Working Conditions Survey 1997)
Agent
Stress

Indicator
Prevalence of stress
among the employed

Backache

Prevalence of
backache among
the employed

Overall
fatigue

Prevalence of overall fatigue among


the employed

Headache

Prevalence of
headache among
the employed

Muscular
pain in
arms or
legs
Sleeping
problems

Prevalence of muscular pain in arms


or legs among the
employed
Prevalence of
sleeping problems
among the employed
Prevalence of irritability among the
employed

Irritability

Job more
difficult
because of
health
problems

Prevalence of persons whose health


problems make
their job more difficult

Definition of indicator
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, stress
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, backache
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, overall fatigue
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, headache
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, muscular pain in arms or legs
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, sleeping problems
Question in survey:
Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF
YES) how does it affect your health?
Yes, irritability
Question in survey:
Is your job more difficult for you because of
chronic or permanent health problems? (no,
never; yes, all the time; yes, almost all of the
time; yes, around 3/4 of the time; yes, around
half of the time; yes, around 1/4 of the time;
yes, but hardly ever; don't know)
Included if at least around 1/4 of the time

33

Unit
%

Absenteeism due to
occupational
health
problems

Prevalence of absenteeism due to


occupational health
problems among
the employed

Question in survey:
Over the past 12 months, how many days, if
any, were you absent due to health problems
caused by your main job?
Included if at least one day

Table 36. Data on indicators of work-related health problems (Second European


Working Conditions Survey 1997)
Agent

Country

Stress

Index country: Finland


Best EU country: Ireland
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Ireland
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Austria
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Ireland
Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland

Backache
Overall fatigue
Headache
Muscular pain in arms or
legs
Sleeping problems
Irritability
Job more difficult because of
health problems
Absenteeism due to occupational health problems

Value of
indicator
34
12
50
33
13
44
20
5
57
20
5
24
29

Unit
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Best EU country: Ireland


Worst EU country: Greece
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Ireland
Worst EU country: Finland
Index country: Finland
Best EU country: Ireland
Worst EU country: Sweden
Index country: Finland

6
37
11
3
11
16
5
18
14

Best EU country: Spain


Worst EU country: Austria
Index country: Finland

4 %
17 %
30 %

Best EU country: Sweden


Worst EU country: Austria

13 %
36 %

34

%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%