ISSN: 2329-6879

Médecine du travail et affaires de santé

Accès libre

Notre groupe organise plus de 3 000 séries de conférences Événements chaque année aux États-Unis, en Europe et en Europe. Asie avec le soutien de 1 000 autres Sociétés scientifiques et publie plus de 700 Open Access Revues qui contiennent plus de 50 000 personnalités éminentes, des scientifiques réputés en tant que membres du comité de rédaction.

Les revues en libre accès gagnent plus de lecteurs et de citations
700 revues et 15 000 000 de lecteurs Chaque revue attire plus de 25 000 lecteurs

Indexé dans
  • Index Copernic
  • Google Scholar
  • Ouvrir la porte J
  • Clés académiques
  • Infrastructure nationale du savoir de Chine (CNKI)
  • Recherche de référence
  • Université Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Fondation genevoise pour l'enseignement et la recherche médicale
  • Euro Pub
  • Fondation genevoise pour l'enseignement et la recherche médicale
  • ICMJE
Partager cette page

Abstrait

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.