ISSN: 2329-6879

Arbeitsmedizin und Gesundheitsangelegenheiten

Offener Zugang

Unsere Gruppe organisiert über 3000 globale Konferenzreihen Jährliche Veranstaltungen in den USA, Europa und anderen Ländern. Asien mit Unterstützung von 1000 weiteren wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften und veröffentlicht über 700 Open Access Zeitschriften, die über 50.000 bedeutende Persönlichkeiten und renommierte Wissenschaftler als Redaktionsmitglieder enthalten.

Open-Access-Zeitschriften gewinnen mehr Leser und Zitierungen
700 Zeitschriften und 15.000.000 Leser Jede Zeitschrift erhält mehr als 25.000 Leser

Indiziert in
  • Index Copernicus
  • Google Scholar
  • Öffnen Sie das J-Tor
  • Akademische Schlüssel
  • Nationale Wissensinfrastruktur Chinas (CNKI)
  • RefSeek
  • Hamdard-Universität
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC – WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Genfer Stiftung für medizinische Ausbildung und Forschung
  • Euro-Pub
  • Genfer Stiftung für medizinische Ausbildung und Forschung
  • ICMJE
Teile diese Seite

Abstrakt

Assessing Work Stressors in the Health Care Sector by Combining External Observation and Health Professionals&rsquo' Self-report in a Cross-sectional Study Design

Peter KA, Stadelmann E, Halfens RJG, Schols JMGA

Objective: Health professionals are particularly affected by work stressors and various methods have already been used to assess them. Linking health professionals’ self-report and external observations can provide a more detailed assessment of stressors, since conclusions for interventions can be derived from their agreement. Since there is a lack of studies in the health sector linking both data sources, the aim of this study is to identify the convergence between health professionals’ self-reports and external observations. Methods: Data were collected in general hospitals, nursing homes, psychiatric institutions and home-care organizations in a cross-sectional study design. 110 health professionals were observed during one entire shift, by one of eight trained external observers. Health professionals and observer separately filled out a questionnaire on work stressors after the observation. For data analysis multiple regression models using bootstrap were calculated considering possible observer effects. Results: Convergent scores for 3 of 9 tested scales on ‘predictability’ of work, ‘social community’ and ‘social relations’ (p>0.05) at work, were identified. However, health professionals rated their ‘quantitative’ (p=0.001), ‘sensorial’ (p=0.001) and ‘physical demands’ (p=0.001) significantly higher than the external observers did. On the contrary, external observers perceived the ‘possibilities for development’ (p=0.007), ‘influence at work’ (p=0.032) and ‘social support at work’ (p=0.002) as lower than did the health professionals. Results also indicate a significant influence of different work settings (p<0.05) on the convergence of self-assessed and observed work stressors. Conclusion: This study results reveal that results on work stressors can be influenced by the chosen method for data collection, which should be considered when using one method only. Moreover, differences between the settings indicate that results on work stressors from one health-care setting cannot be easily transferred to another.