Seafarers’ well-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

2.1Participants and procedure

This study is based on a qualitative online survey which included a non-random sample of seafarers from the global maritime market. The sample used may be classified as purposive, since the researcher sought only those seafarers who are willing to reflect on their experience regarding the research topic, and convenience, since it included a non-representative sample of participants who meet practical criteria (e.g. easy accessibility, geographic proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate) [21]. The sampling was based on the help of many national and international maritime organisations, unions, associations and groups who shared the call for participation in the study on their social-media websites. Additionally, a snowball strategy of sampling was used, as willing participants also shared the call for participation in the study among their colleagues. The sampling procedure described, as well as the study design, gave confidence in anonymity for participants, since they perceived that their participation in the study was in no way related to the company that employed them.

The total sample consisted of 752 seafarers employed in the shipping sector. At the time of participation in the study, 55.11% of participants were located at home, while 39.90% were working on a ship. The rest of the sample (4.99%) reported other non-home land locations. The majority of the participants were male (89.23% male and 10.77% female seafarers). The age of the participants ranged from 19 to 76 years (M = 37.34, SD = 10.37), while the average length of service in the shipping sector was 14.10 years (SD = 10.13). By nationality, the greatest number of participants in the sample were Croatian (27.53%). They were followed by seafarers from Turkey (8.78%), the Philippines (7.71%), Ukraine (5.59%), Romania (5.05%), the United Kingdom (4.52), India (4.12%), Latvia (3.39%), Russia (3.46%), the Republic of Ireland (3.32%), Germany (2.52%), the Netherlands (2.66%), the United States of America (2.13%), Montenegro (1.76%), Sweden (1.73%), Oman (1.60%), and Bulgaria (1.20%). The rest of the sample consisted of seafarers from a range of countries (Malaysia, Norway, Greece, Lithuania, Italy, Egypt, Brazil, Belgium, South Africa, Poland, Indonesia, Algeria, Georgia, Spain, Bangladesh, Finland, Nigeria, France, Venezuela, Malta, Nepal, Serbia, Slovenia, Ghana, Canada, Pakistan, Australia, Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Colombia, Morocco, Senegal, Chile, the Seychelles, Luxembourg, Syria, New Zealand, Tanzania and Portugal). The percentages of participants from each of these countries were below 1% . Regarding type of ship, the largest number of participants worked on cargo ships (66.85%), such as oil and oil-product tankers, LNG and LPG ships, chemicals, containers, general cargo ships etc. Seafarers who worked on passenger ships (e.g. cruise ships, ferries and yachts) constituted 16.11% of the sample. The rest of the sample participants (17.04%) reported working on special-purpose ships and/or in other types of maritime jobs (e.g. dredgers, research ships, tugs, suppliers, support vessels, pilot vessels, rescue ships, training ships, FSO vessels, and offshore platforms). The majority of the participants (90.43%) worked in international shipping, while the rest of the sample reported working in domestic/national shipping. The sample mostly included seafarers from the higher ranks. More precisely, the largest number of participants by rank were deck officers (39.93%), followed by masters/captains (16.49%), engine officers (10.37%), chief engineers (7.85%), and electro-technical officers (5.59%). The rest of the sample consisted of cadets in the Deck and Engine department (6.38%), members of the deck crew (5.19%), members of the engine crew (1.99%), members of the Steward Department (1.73%) and others. The sample was heterogeneous with regard to the reports on contracted patterns of on-board and off-board shift change, as patterns of shift change depend on various characteristics (type of the ship and shipping field, maritime company policy, work positions, country of citizenship, etc.). Patterns of shifts varied from shorter equal periods of less than one month (e.g. 15 days on-off), through medium equal periods (e.g. 3 months on-off) and medium non-equal periods (e.g. 4 months on, 2 months off), to longer periods with equal duration (e.g. 6 months on-off) and non-equal (e.g. 8 months on followed by 2 or 4 months off). More than half of the participants were married (59.44%), followed by participants who reported single status (23.54%), and those living in domestic partnership (13.30%). The rest of the sample included seafarers who were divorced (2.39%), separated (0.93%) and widowed (0.39%). Of the participants, 59.97% reported having children.

The non-probabilistic sampling procedure used does not allow the giving of data on response rate. Furthermore, the sample of seafarers used differs from the target population of seafarers in the global maritime market [22] with regard to basic characteristics such as country of citizenship and work position. However, considering the qualitative methodological approach used, which does not aim at quantifying the reports obtained and generalising at population level, the heterogeneity obtained among the sample participants allows fulfilment of the research aim: to describe experiences regarding the research topic from the perspectives of a heterogeneous sample of seafarers. In addition, it should be emphasised that the final sample size was related to the saturation point and theoretical validity of the data. The author analysed the collected data simultaneously with the data collection, and stopped sampling at the point where no new themes were identified (saturation), and when it was ensured that the emerged theoretical patterns did not change in time (theoretical validity).

Data was collected via online questionnaire from 5th of April to 14th of May 2020. Ethical approval had previously been granted by the Ethics Board of the Department of Psychology, University of Zadar. Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants were informed about all the important aspects of the study in the call for participation in the study. Anonymity of participants, as well as confidentiality of data, was guaranteed. The contact details of the researcher were provided to ensure that participants had the opportunity for questions, comments and/or requests for feedback relating to the results of the study. The participants perceived the researcher as a neutral scientist with previous experience in the area of maritime psychology. Reflexivity was maintained through the whole research process; i.e. the author considered the possible effects of her personal characteristics, previous experience in research among seafarers, and epistemological perspective on study design, data collection and data analysis. The researcher’s interest in seafarers’ well-being at a moment of global crisis was regarded as important for getting honest, deep and detailed data, suitable for a qualitative approach.

2.2Materials

The first part of the questionnaire, designed in Google Docs, contained sociodemographic and work-related questions, while the second part contained one question relating to the research topic of this study.

The questions in the first part included data on gender, age, country of citizenship, length of service in the maritime sector, marital status, having children, and current location. Further work-related questions included work position, type of ship, shipping field (national or international shipping), and contracted pattern of on-board and off-board shift change. Depending on the current location (ship or home), participants answered these work-related questions with regard to their current or previous work contract.

The key question “How does the COVID 19 pandemic affect you personally?” was designed as an open question. The participants were informed that the researcher was seeking deep, detailed descriptions of the effects of this situation on seafarers, and that they were free to use their own words when answering this question. However, several sub-questions that may have helped in creating the answer to the key question were offered. The sub-questions included: “To what extent has this situation prolonged your stay on board or at home? How does this situation affect you? How do you feel regarding this situation? How does this situation affect your well-being, your health (including your physical state and your mental and emotional state), your work motivation and work productivity, your financial situation, your family and social life, relations with important others, your attitudes towards life, towards your job, your life values, your beliefs, etc.?”. Although these sub-questions were offered as help, the participants’ task was to give an answer only to the key question, and it was emphasised to them that all answers relating to their personal experiences of the current pandemic situation were welcome.

2.3Data processing and data analysis

The data obtained was exported into an Excel table in which each participant had a code number.

Statistical parameters (M, SD and %) were used only for describing the sample in terms of relevant sociodemographic and work characteristics.

The reports generated in relation to the key open question satisfied the criteria for a qualitative app-roach, as they were collected in natural situations, collected via a non-structured research technique, and not reduced in any way prior to analysis, and they ensured deep insight into the participants’ experiences and reflections relating to the research topic [18, 19]. The reports were transported to a Word document and analysed using thematic analysis [23]; the steps in the analysis consisted of familiarizing with the data, generation of initial codes, and analysis of relevant themes (searching, reviewing, defining and labelling themes). Analysis was conducted manually in an electronic document, without use of any specialised software. Initial codes and themes, as well as author’s notes relevant for further analysis (reflections, observed links, and early interpretations), were recorded in the form of comments in the document. Finally, different colouring was used for identifying participants’ reports (or parts of reports) that related to the specific themes.

The author used an inductive approach in the analysis, since the study aimed to develop themes from the data, with no external influences. The emerged themes were validated through an iterative process of reading the original data, the author’s analysis of relevant themes, and re-reading the original data. The author seriously considered her reflexivity in this process to ensure that the themes emerged from the data. Additionally, as a test of ‘goodness of fit’ between data and themes, a ‘search for deviant cases’ that did not fit the themes was used. Although member checking with participants was not used, due to the issue of anonymity, it is safe to note that the results have a high level of participants’ validity, as the themes identified closely reflect the original data (See examples in Tables 1, 2).

3.1Seafarers on board

Seafarers who were currently on board reported mostly on their mental and physical well-being in the context of their prolonged stay on the ship. Although mental and physical well-being represents distinct concepts, it may be seen from the examples (Table 1) that seafarers reported on them mostly as common consequences, since fatigue and uncertainty related to the current situation, according to their reports, affected both their mental and physical states. However, it might be said that the dominant answers within this theme related more to a detailed description of mental well-being (e.g. negative emotions, moods and feelings, unfavourable cognitive evaluations of the current life as a seafarer), in which some participants reported seriously disrupted mental health (e.g. suicidal thoughts). As shown in Table 1, participants referred to their mental state in terms of mental tiredness, worry, anxiety, nervousness, stress, sadness and depression. On the other hand, physical state was mostly referred to in terms of fatigue resulting from a prolonged working period and high workload, the effect of a psychological state caused by stress on physical status (e.g. medical issues resulting from anxiety, sleep disturbance, etc.), and fear of possible infection with coronavirus resulting from not respecting the vessel as an isolated environment. Still, fear of infection depends on protective measures on board, and some participants reported that they felt safer being on board at the moment in comparison with being home. Furthermore, although seafarers’ reports on work motivation, engagement and efficiency varied across the sample, with some participants reporting that they still do their best in spite of the situation, the majority expressed a negative influence of their current mental and physical state on their motivation to work. As can be seen from examples in Table 1, their mental and physical fatigue, as well as unfavourable emotional state, in some cases led to an extreme inability to concentrate and engage in work tasks (e.g. “ . . .  Completely exhausted. No wish to work. Feeling of indifference about my duties and responsibilities. Feeling indifference about the ship . . .  ”), which represents a serious threat to on-board safety.

The social well-being of seafarers whose working period on board has been prolonged past the work contract may simply be described as “feeling worse than in prison as they don’t know the release date”. Although seafarers are generally used to living and working in a socially isolated environment, the fact that the period of isolation is significantly prolonged to an uncertain date, alongside restrictions introduced regarding shore leave, has significantly affected their social well-being. Reports of loneliness and missing of their families are aggravated by fear for loved ones because of the world pandemic. Finally, social welfare is severely undermined by the sense of isolation from the community and abandonment by formal organizations and associations in charge of caring for seafarers. Prolonged isolation and the experience of being “forgotten” contribute to the earlier-described effects on mental and physical plans.

The strongest picture of observed personal experiences of seafarers on board is the contrast between the key or essential role of the seafaring profession and the fact that they feel not like key workers, but like prisoners. Actually, the words “jail”, “prison”, and “trap” are very common in the descriptions of their experience. The contrast noted may be seen from two citations below.

I feel mentally tired, but mostly due to constantly thinking about when I will go home. Honestly, it is surprising how we are still not officially considered key workers worldwide. IMO should have the authority to force any country to let us travel freely, and not ‘recommend it’. It is absurd how all the countries want to keep their benefits from shipping, but they don’t like to offer anything in return. I still consider that I need to do my part in this crisis, but if let’s say 30% of the seamen would just stop and boycott this, and goods and food wouldn’t reach their destinations, then you would see a real crisis where people would start looting and fighting for food.

“ . . .  everyone feels as trapped as we are, and I’ve never wished I had a less ‘essential’ job until now.” .

Finally, the majority of participants located on board did not refer to their economic well-being, but descriptions given by those who referred to it were mostly favourable. Some of them reported feeling satisfied and privileged as they work normally and earn while many people all around the world lose their jobs as a consequence of the world pandemic.

3.2Seafarers at home

Most reports by seafarers located at home at the moment of participation in the study related to economic well-being (Table 2). As can be seen from examples in Table 2, this subsample of participants reported mostly on financial worries, as their salary is often the greatest source of the family income. A prolonged period at home for a large proportion of participants means an absolute lack of income, as they are paid only during working periods, and/or they have no formal work contract at the moment. The short quote “I don’t know how to feed my family” obtained from one of the respondents illustrates the helplessness of seafarers who are usually sole income providers in their families. Some of the participants reported losing their jobs because of this situation. The most endangered are seafarers in the passenger-shipping sector, who expressed a serious fear of whether and when the cruise industry would recover. For some of the participants this extended home period means extended holidays, as they are still paid. However, even they expressed worries, as they are not sure how long that can last and how it will affect their further lives (as the company policy of ‘minus-days’ means that they will have prolonged working periods in future). Furthermore, a large proportion of participants are worried about paying large taxes at the end of the year, as their prolonged period at home will stop the usual tax exemption based on working days in international shipping. Finally, restrictive measures have also blocked attendance of university studies and other educational courses, i.e. getting and/or renewing various professional certificates upon which their ability to be employed and/or get promotion are based. Therefore, this aspect contributed to their negative feelings relating to future career and economic well-being.

In comparison to economic well-being, reports relating to mental, physical and social well-being were relatively underrepresented in the subsample of seafarers located at home. However, it is evident that mental and physical well-being of seafarers left at home may be seriously endangeredby financial worries and uncertainty about the future. (See examples in Table 2.) Job uncertainty in the seafaring sector has imposed itself as a primary source of stress, which reflects on the well-being of whole families, and which has led to considering a change of job. With regard to social well-being, the reports obtained indicated two general patterns. Some of the participants experience restrictive measures regarding physical distance (orders or recommendation for isolation –‘stay at home’ measures) less difficult, as they are finally spending a longer time with their families. On the other hand, isolated periods at home for some of them are additionally frustrating. They reported on the extreme stressfulness of this situation, as isolation at home has come after their isolated work period on board and will be followed by a working period in an isolated environment in the future.