4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

DROP-OUT - INADEQUATE RESPONSE OF SEAFARERES TO STRESS

期刊

PSYCHIATRIA DANUBINA
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 53-57

出版社

MEDICINSKA NAKLADA

关键词

seafarers; stress; drop-out

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Seafarers are usually exposed to many stressors that are related to different duties on board. Several notable researchers have argued that stress is a transactional phenomenon between the individual and the environment that is largely dependent on the meaning given to the stimulus by the perceiver. One of the many causes of stress are poor communication skills. Subjects and methods: The aim of the study was to xplain why respondents drop out of research. The project was originally supposed to take place over a period of two years and involve a minimum of 30 respondents per group (30 skippers and 30 seafarers) who would take part in the research for at least four weeks while on board, or during the skipper season. Activity was to be measured with the Polar A370 fitness tracker, worn as a wrist-watch or bracelet and used for 24-hour heart rate, bodily activity and sleep pattern tracking for every respondent. The other device used is TANITA MC780MA, which is a segmental body composition analyser. Results: We contacted overall 146 seafarers, of whom: 40 (27.4%) skippers, 43 (29.5%) deck officers and 63 (43.1%) engine officers. Participation was refused by 18 (12.3% of all contacted) individuals and 108 (74.0%) respondents dropped out during the research. Due to group dispersal and a low number of respondents who reached the end of the research, the project will have to be prolonged. Conclusion: We believe that the reasons behind respondent dispersal can be found in their inability to recognize the state they are in and in poor communication skills, while at the same time being exposed to extreme and possibly precarious work conditions. This forms a closed loop that only continues to generate even higher stress levels. Further research is needed to look into this phenomenon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据