
Occupational safety and health in the aquaculture industry – a global review
Report: Occupational health and safety in the aquaculture industry – a global review.
This page is approximately a 5 minute read
This page was published on
In support of its mission to enhance the safety of critical infrastructure, Lloyd’s Register Foundation sought to understand the relationship between safety in critical sectors and the psychological wellbeing of workers within them, resulting in this 2020 report.
Building on that work and with a focus on the maritime industry specifically, the Foundation has commissioned Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent University to conduct a rapid evidence assessment of existing industry and academic publications about interventions (i.e., initiatives) that support the wellbeing of seafarers. The work provides a baseline towards taking a systematic approach to understanding and sharing ‘what works’ for seafaring wellbeing. The full report from NTU is available here.
The wellbeing of seafarers is a long-standing concern in the maritime sector. Traditionally the concern of maritime charities primarily, seafarer wellbeing is increasingly understood as a key influencer of the sector’s safety and sustainability, with every type of industry stakeholder - companies, regulators, states, etc. - having a role to play in its assurance. Wellbeing interventions are extremely varied and not always labelled as such, making it difficult to know which to adopt and how their effectiveness and scalability compares. This is particularly true of interventions relating to psychological wellbeing. While risks to seafarers’ wellbeing are high in general, risks to the psychological aspects of their wellbeing specifically are high compared to workers in other related sectors1 and that this risk only increased with the challenges of COVID, especially the ‘crew-change crisis’.
A rapid evidence assessment (REA) involves identifying and pulling together the core publications around a given subject. Compared to techniques used for systematic reviews, REAs are conducted over shorter periods of time and involve making pragmatic decisions about what to include/exclude, based on criteria established at the start of the process, which often enables a broad and diverse range of publications to be identified. The criteria for this REA were designed in response to the following questions:
The REA, which in this case was limited to English-language, identified 691 publications as of interest, which was reduced to a final selection of 183. The publications cover highly varied approaches and initiatives concerning seafarers’ psychological wellbeing.
The findings above clearly demonstrate gaps in topic coverage and in study types and methods, which if addressed (noting real and practical impediments) would provide a more comprehensive evidence base about how best to improve seafarer wellbeing in support of safety. However, for this or any evidence base to be useful, a single framework is needed to offer the possibility of unifying existing work and to provide a suitable benchmark for evaluation. Currently, this is lacking.
The authors also note that the diversity of the current evidence base may be a strength rather than a shortcoming because the potential to develop different methods for curating and analysing existing work could reveal novel opportunities for effective interventions that would not have been arrived at otherwise.
Additionally, while the REA found no one intervention with enough evidence to enable ‘active ingredients’ to be extracted and applied to improve seafarer wellbeing more broadly, it did find some evidence that seafarers themselves have clear preferences around interventions, while the publications also report that for many shore-based stakeholders in the industry, the importance of seafarer wellbeing remains underappreciated. As a result, the authors recommend a focus on ‘employee voice’ to manage differing expectations between stakeholders.
The Foundation commissioned this REA to inform its planned ‘What Works Centre for Safety’ and specifically work within it aimed at establishing ‘what works’ for improving wellbeing of seafarers, in the service of safety at sea.
‘What works’ is a method that can be used to improve the impact that research findings have on people’s lives. It is based on the principle that good decision making is underpinned by good evidence, and if that evidence isn’t available, robust ways of generating that evidence should be established. What works recognises that research evidence on its own is not enough; you need to know how and why something works, for who, and finally, how to implement what is known.
Our anticipated ‘what works for seafarer wellbeing’ activity will build capacity and work closely with industry to fill the gaps identified in the REA, firmly based on industry need (including the perspective of serving seafarers) and crucially, to develop a unifying model for accessing, understanding and learning from existing and future work - made freely available to all.
For further information on the project, please get in touch via the form below.
[1] See Brown et al., 2020; Shah, 2021; Abila et al., 2022 - included in the REA report’s list of references.
See Brown et al., 2020; Shah, 2021; Abila et al., 2022 - included in the REA report’s list of references.