Measuring Industrial Health Using a Diminished Quality of Life Instrument

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an approach to efficiently measure health and safety at the workplace especially for workers in manufacturing. The paper is interesting and well written. I have some concerns about the paper which should be addressed by the authors:

1) In the introduction part, it should be elaborated more clearly that the instrument you want to present is an instrument especially designed for workers in manufacturing.

On page 1, the authors state: “Hence there is a need for instruments and methodologies to measure the risk of harm in the workplace, before it occurs. This paper develops such an instrument, and proposes a new concept of diminished quality of life (DQL) as a measure of occupational health.” Concepts and measures to assess health and safety risks at the workplace already have been developed in a large number (e.g., Jiménez & Dunkl, 2017; Leka, Jain Iavicoli & DiTecco, 2015). This is not the research gap the authors want to address. The novelty of the approach presented in this paper is the specific focus on manufacture workers and the development of an approach that is suited for this specific group of workers. I think there is a need to develop target group-specific measures in risk assessment to address the challenges that are specific for each industrial sector and workplace. The DQL is such an instrument that can fill-in this gap. I ask the authors to rewrite the Introduction to be more specific about what they want to present.

Jiménez, P., & Dunkl, A. (2017). Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. Journal of Ergonomics, 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2165-7556.1000188

Leka, S., Jain, A., Iavicoli, S., & DiTecco, C. (2015). An Evaluation of the Policy Context on Psychosocial Risks and Mental Health in the Workplace in the European Union: Achievements, Challenges, and the Future. BioMed Research International, Article ID 213089. doi: 10.1155/2015/213089

2) It is a good approach to combine the likelihood of the risk and the consequences that might arise because of the risks. An approach that has been neglected by the conventional risk assessment (on purpose). However, can the DQL now be used as a risk assessment tool or should it be used in addition? When should organizations apply the DQL? The authors state in the discussion that the traditional risk management approach might be unsuited in some cases and that another approach – such as the DQL – should be used instead. This is indeed a radical approach, as the traditional risk assessment is a legal obligation in all European countries.

3) It is stated that traditional risk assessment methodologies, such as stated in the norm ISO 30100, are different from the approach presented in this paper. What about the European Union Directive 89/391/EEC, or the Occupational Safety and Health Convention (ILO)? For a good overview of all directives and norms, see Leka et al. (2011). I do not mean that the authors should address all of these directives and norms, but I think that especially the 89/391/EEC should be mentioned.

Leka, S., Jain, A., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Zolnierczyk-Zreda, D. & Zwetsloot, G. (2011). Developing a standard for psychosocial risk management: PAS 1010. Safety Science, 49, 1047-1057. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.003

4) The results section is difficult to follow. I would explain the conceptual model (4.1) after the chapter “Literature Review” or within this chapter. Also, the WHODAS should be explained during the “Literature Review”. In my opinion, the actual results begin after 4.6, where the WHODAS is applied in the manufacturing sector.

5) Machinery hazards, page 5: “Infection” is stated as a machinery hazard. Isn’t the actual hazard the bacteria/virus and the infection is the consequence? The same might apply to “Impact” (which might the the consequence as well?)

6) The categorization of the DQL scores (page 14) seems arbitrary. I know that specifying cut-off-values for health risks are almost impossible to define. However, please state more clearly why these values have been chosen.

7) Discussion section: I do not agree with the authors that in the conventional risk management methodology, the risk is the product of consequence and likelihood. Instead, the traditional risk management approach focuses much more strongly on the likelihood and does not consider the consequences. This is also what the authors write on page 3, where they state that in the conventional risk assessment, the consequences and likelihood are strictly differentiated.

other remarks:

Figure 4: Figure 4 is very difficult to read and some texts are cut-off.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this favorable comment. See attachment for the response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I thought the authors provided an innovative method of measuring the health component of health and safety in the workplace. One minor suggestion for the authors is to briefly discuss how to potentially control for health consequences that didn't occur in the workplace, but rather individuals' lifestyles and existing health conditions that occurred outside of their workplace.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this favorable comment. Please see attachment for the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript Safety-380340, authors presented the development of an instrument to measure the health component of workplace Health and Safety (H&S). This was achieved by adapting the established WHODAS quality of life score to workplace health. Specifically, the method is to identify the likelihood of an exposure incident arising (as estimated by engineering technologists and H&S officers), followed evaluation 21 of the biological harm consequences. Those consequences are then scored by using the WHODAS 12-item inventory. The result is an assessment of the Diminished Quality of Life (DQL) associated with a workplace hazard.  Authors concluded that this instrument may then be used to manage the minimization of harm, exposure monitoring, and the design of safe systems of work.

The experimental design of the study and the development of the proposed method are certainly interesting. The introduction section provides adequate information to properly define the background and the problem statement. The adopted methodologies appear to be adequate for the stated purpose, and they are clearly presented in the manuscript. The proposed DQL instrument was also applied to a case study (Lathe Work). The discussion of the application of the proposed DQL method in other case studies would have been interesting and would have provided further elements to fully understand the potential of the method (as well as its potential limits!), which however appears very promising, for the preliminary assessment and screening of potential occupational risks and consequent impacts. I hope this topic will be the subject of further studies and publications.

If possible, figures and tables should be edited in more readable and clear formats. Anyhow, the manuscript doesn’t show relevant errors and omissions. In summary, this is a manuscript that deals with an interesting topic, addressed with an innovative method. I recommend this manuscript for the  publication on Safety.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this favorable comment. Please see attachment for the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for addressing all of my comments, the revised paper is now suited for publication.