How Does the Assessment of Work Organization during the COVID-19 Pandemic Relate to Changes in the Well-Being of Health System Workers?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedure
Ethics
2.2. Participants
2.3. Safety and Stability Supporting Organizational Factors
2.3.1. Physical and Psychological Well-Being
2.3.2. Socio-Demographic Characteristics
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rodrigues, K.F.; Carpes, M.M.; Raffagnato, C.G. Disaster preparedness and response in Brazil in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rev. De Adm. Pública 2020, 54, 614–634. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, A.W.; Connors, C.; Everly, G.S., Jr. COVID-19: Peer Support and Crisis Communication Strategies to Promote Institutional Resilience. Ann. Intern. Med. 2020, 172, 822–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, T.; Guan, R.; Sun, L. Perceived organizational support and PTSD symptoms of frontline healthcare workers in the outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and coping strategies. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2021, 10, 111. [Google Scholar]
- Huffman, E.M.; Athanasiadis, D.I.; Anton, N.E.; Haskett, L.A.; Doster, D.L.; Stefanidis, D.; Lee, N.K. How resilient is your team? Exploring healthcare providers’ well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. J. Surg. 2020, 221, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Que, J.; Shi, L.; Deng, J.; Liu, J.; Zhang, L.; Wu, S.; Gong, Y.; Huang, W.; Yuan, K.; Yan, W.; et al. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers: A cross-sectional study in China. Gen. Psychiatr 2020, 33, e100259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamouche, S. COVID-19 and employees’ mental health: Stressors, moderators and agenda for organizational actions. Emerald Open Res. 2020, 2, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, S.X.; Sun, S.; Jahanshahi, A.A.; Alvarez-Risco, A.; Ibarra, V.G.; Li, J.; Patty-Tito, M.P. Developing and testing a measure of COVID-19 organizational support of healthcare workers—Results from Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 291, 113174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babore, A.; Lombardi, L.; Viceconti, M.L.; Pignataro, S.; Marino, V.; Crudele, M.; Candelori, C.; Bramanti, S.M.; Trumello, C. Psychological effects of the COVID-2019 pandemic: Perceived stress and coping strategies among healthcare professionals. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flesia, L.; Fietta, V.; Colicino, E.; Segatto, B.; Monaro, M. Predicting Perceived Stress Related to the Covid-19 Outbreak through Stable Psychological Traits and Machine Learning Models. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adams, G.J.; Walls, R.M. Supporting the Health Care Workforce during the COVID-19. JAMA 2020, 323, 1439–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aselage, J.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 491–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Leiter, M.P. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group: Hove, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 69–132. [Google Scholar]
- Shanafelt, T.; Ripp, J.; Trockel, M. Understanding and Addressing Sources of Anxiety among Health Care Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA 2020, 323, 2133–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, D.A. Missing data. Orig. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 372–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čekanavičius, V.; Murauskas, G. Statistika ir jos taikymas II; TEV: Vilnius, Lietuva, 2004; pp. 181–193. [Google Scholar]
- Giusti, E.M.; Pedroli, E.; D’Aniello, G.E.; Bediale, C.S.; Pietrabissa, G.; Manna, C.; Badiale, M.S.; Riva, G.; Castelnuovo, G.; Molinari, E. The Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Health Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rangachari, P.L.; Woods, J. Preserving Organizational Resilience, Patient Safety, and Staff Retention during COVID-19 Requires a Holistic Consideration of the Psychological Safety of Healthcare Workers. Int J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stinglhamber, F.; Vandenberghe, C. Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elovainio, M.; Salo, P.; Jokela, M.; Heponiemi, T. Psychosocial factors and well-being among Finnish GPs and specialists: A 10-year follow-up. Occup Environ. Med. 2013, 70, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jing, F.F.; Avery, G.C.; Bergsteiner, H. Organizational climate and performance in retail pharmacies. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2011, 32, 224–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.I.; Chang, H. Work climate perception and turnover intention among Korean hospital staff. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2009, 56, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbonas, G.; Kubilienė, L.; Kubilius, R.; Urbonienė, A. Assessing the effects of pharmacists’ perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and turnover intention on provision of medication information at community pharmacies in Lithuania: A structural equation modeling approach. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2015, 15, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brooks, S.K.; Dunn, R.; Amlôt, R.; Rubin, G.J.; Greenberg, N. A systematic, thematic review of social and occupational factors associated with psychological outcomes in healthcare employees during an infectious disease outbreak. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 60, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiang, Y.T.; Yang, Y.; Li, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Cheung, T.; Ng, C.H. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. Lancet Psychiatry 2020, 7, 228–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di Tella, M.; Romeo, A.; Benfante, A.; Castelli, L. Mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. J. Eval Clin. Pr. 2020, 26, 1583–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romero, C.S.; Delgado, C.; Catalá, J.; Ferrer, C.; Errando, C.; Iftimi, A.; Benito, A.; de Andrés, J.; Otero, M. COVID-19 psychological impact in 3109 healthcare workers in Spain: The PSIMCOV group. Psychol Med. 2020, 14, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zerbini, G.; Ebigbo, A.; Reicherts, P.; Kunz, M.; Messman, H. Psychosocial burden of healthcare professionals in times of COVID-19—A survey conducted at the University Hospital Augsburg. Ger. Med. Sci. 2020, 18, Doc05. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Desclaux, A.; Badji, D.; Ndione, A.G.; Sow, K. Accepted monitoring or endured quarantine? Ebola contacts’ perceptions in Senegal. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 178, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maunder, R.G.; Lancee, W.J.; Balderson, K.E.; Bennett, J.P.; Borgundvaag, B.; Evans, S.; Fernandes, C.M.; Goldbloom, D.S.; Gupta, M.; Hunter, J.J.; et al. Long-term psychological and occupational effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2006, 12, 1924–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kinman, G.; Teoh, K.; Harriss, A. Supporting the well-being of healthcare workers during and after COVID-19. Occup. Med. 2020, 70, 294–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngoma, M.; Namono, R.; Nangoli, S.; Bashir, H.; Nakyeyune, S. Towards fighting COVID-19: Can servant leadership behaviour enhance commitment of medical knowledge-workers. Contin. Resil. Rev. 2021, 3, 49–63. [Google Scholar]
- Patrnachak, J.M. Implementing servant leadership at Cleveland Clinic: A case study in organizational change. Servant Leadersh. Theory Pract. 2015, 2, 36–48. [Google Scholar]
- Trastek, V.F.; Hamilton, N.W.; Niles, E.E. Leadership models in health care—A case for servant leadership. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2014, 89, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gigliotti, R.A. Leader as Performer; Leader as Human: A Discursive and Retrospective Construction of Crisis Leadership. Atl. J. Commun. 2016, 24, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item’s Marking | SAS-SOF Items | Adapted Framework | Framework; Shanafelt et al. [13] |
---|---|---|---|
I | Psychological climate in my organization remained unchanged or even improved. | Psychological needs | Support me |
II | My organization showed additional care about employees’ health and well-being (e.g., offered free psychological consultations, provided information on opportunities for emotional support, etc.) | Psychological needs | Support me |
III | My organization has adequately ensured employees’ protection and the control of the spread of infection (e.g., provided protective equipment, provided the possibility to have the COVID-19 test, separated staff flows). | Physical protection | Protect me |
IV | There was no confrontation between the administration and the staff in my organization. | Response | Hear me |
V | The organization’s support and assistance (the administration listening and responding) helped me to overcome difficulties. | Response | Hear me |
VI | The distribution of workloads and salaries to all members of the team followed the principle of justice in my organization. | Care | Care for me |
VII | My organization timely provided the necessary information to employees. | Timely information | Prepare me |
VIII | Messages and instructions given by my organization to the staff did not contradict each other. | Timely information | Prepare me |
Variable | Total N (%) | Physical Well-Being | Psychological Well-Being | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Decreased N (%) | Increased/Has Not Changed N (%) | Decreased N (%) | Increased/Has Not Changed N (%) | ||
Gender | |||||
Women | 817 (89.4) | 188 (88.7) | 605 (89.4) | 308 (87.7) | 487 (90.2) |
Men | 97 (10.6) | 24 (11.3) | 72 (10.6) | 43 (12.3) | 53 (9.8) |
Work field | |||||
Public | 652 (71.6) | 141 (66.5) | 496 (73.5) | 239 (68.1) | 401 (74.5) |
Private | 259 (28.4) | 71 (33.5) | 179 (26.5) | 112 (31.9) | 137 (25.5) |
Specialty | |||||
Physicians | 248 (27.1) | 56 (26.4) | 189 (27.8) | 106 (30.1) | 140 (25.9) |
Nurses | 245 (26.7) | 54 (25.5) | 186 (27.4) | 91 (25.9) | 150 (27.7) |
Pharmacy specialists | 224 (24.5) | 58 (27.4) | 157 (23.1) | 93 (26.4) | 121 (22.4) |
Administrative staff | 73 (8.0) | 16 (7.5) | 53 (7.8) | 22 (6.3) | 48 (8.9) |
Other professions | 126 (13.8) | 28 (13.2) | 94 (13.8) | 40 (11.4) | 82 (15.2) |
Age (years) | |||||
Mean | 42.64 | 39.69 | 43.43 | 41.65 | 43.09 |
SD | 12.72 | 12.28 | 12.75 | 12.82 | 12.65 |
Min–Max. | 21–79 | 21–67 | 21–79 | 22–79 | 21–49 |
SAS-SOF Items Marking | Total Mean (SD) N = 921 | Physical Well-Being | Psychological Well-Being | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Decreased N = 212 | Increased/Has Not Changed N = 683 | p (2-Tailed) | Decreased N = 352 | Increased/Has Not Changed N = 545 | p (2-Tailed) | ||
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||||
I * | 2.97 (1.34) | 2.37 (1.32) | 3.14 (1.30) ** | <0.001 ** | 2.56 (1.30) | 3.21 (1.31) ** | <0.001 ** |
II | 2.88 (1.49) | 2.39 (1.47) | 3.00 (1.45) ** | <0.001 ** | 2.53 (1.44) | 3.06 (1.47) ** | <0.001 ** |
III | 3.72 (1.27) | 3.44 (1.29) | 3.79 (1.26) ** | <0.001 ** | 3.45 (1.28) | 3.87 (1.24) ** | <0.001 ** |
IV | 3.29 (1.44) | 2.78 (1.46) | 3.44 (1.40) ** | <0.001 ** | 2.99 (1.48) | 3.46 (1.39) ** | <0.001 ** |
V | 2.72 (1.43) | 2.25 (1.27) | 2.83 (1.44) ** | <0.001 ** | 2.35 (1.29) | 2.91 (1.46) ** | <0.001 ** |
VI | 3.17 (1.43) | 2.68 (1.39) | 3.30 (1.41) ** | <0.001 ** | 2.78 (1.35) | 3.39 (1.43) ** | <0.001 ** |
VII | 3.63 (1.32) | 3.24 (1.36) | 3.73 (1.29) ** | <0.001 ** | 3.39 (1.33) | 3.75 (1.30) ** | <0.001 ** |
VIII | 3.51 (1.30) | 3.17 (1.35) | 3.60 (1.27) ** | <0.001 ** | 3.28 (1.33) | 3.64 (1.26) ** | <0.001 ** |
Total estimate | 25.89 (8.89) | 22.32 (8.52) | 26.837 (8.71) ** | <0.001 ** | 23.35 (8.43) | 27.30 (8.80) ** | <0.001 ** |
SAS-SOF Items | Physical Well-Being Increased/Has Not Changed | Psychological Well-Being Increased/Has Not Changed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Univariate | Multivariate ** | Univariate | Multivariate ** | ||
I * | OR | 1.56 *** | 1.56 *** | 1.45 *** | 1.49 *** |
OR 95% | 1.38–1.76 | 1.37–1.78 | 1.31–1.62 | 1.33–1.66 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
II | OR | 1.34 *** | 1.32 *** | 1.28 *** | 1.27 *** |
OR 95% | 1.20–1.49 | 1.18–1.48 | 1.17–1.41 | 1.15–1.40 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
III | OR | 1.23 *** | 1.23 *** | 1.30 *** | 1.30 *** |
OR 95% | 1.10–1.39 | 1.08–1.39 | 1.17–1.44 | 1.17–1.46 | |
P | <0.005 *** | <0.005 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
IV | OR | 1.38 *** | 1.41 *** | 1.26 *** | 1.30 *** |
OR 95% | 1.24–1.54 | 1.25–1.58 | 1.14–1.38 | 1.17–1.43 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
V | OR | 1.35 *** | 1.33 *** | 1.33 *** | 1.33 *** |
OR 95% | 1.20–1.52 | 1.17–1.50 | 1.20–1.47 | 1.20–1.48 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
VI | OR | 1.36 *** | 1.33 *** | 1.35 *** | 1.34 *** |
OR 95% | 1.22–1.52 | 1.19–1.49 | 1.23–1.49 | 1.21–1.48 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
VII | OR | 1.32 *** | 1.33 *** | 1.23 *** | 1.25 *** |
OR 95% | 1.18–1.48 | 1.18–1.51 | 1.11–1.36 | 1.12–1.39 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
VIII | OR | 1.30 *** | 1.35 *** | 1.23 *** | 1.28 *** |
OR 95% | 1.15–1.45 | 1.19–1.54 | 1.11–1.37 | 1.15–1.44 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | |
Total estimate | OR | 1.06 *** | 1.06 *** | 1.05 *** | 1.06 *** |
OR 95% | 1.04–1.08 | 1.04–1.09 | 1.04–1.07 | 1.04–1.08 | |
P | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** | <0.001 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kubilienė, L.; Griciūtė, A.; Miglinė, V.; Kukulskienė, M.; Stankūnienė, A.; Žemaitienė, N. How Does the Assessment of Work Organization during the COVID-19 Pandemic Relate to Changes in the Well-Being of Health System Workers? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158202
Kubilienė L, Griciūtė A, Miglinė V, Kukulskienė M, Stankūnienė A, Žemaitienė N. How Does the Assessment of Work Organization during the COVID-19 Pandemic Relate to Changes in the Well-Being of Health System Workers? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(15):8202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158202
Chicago/Turabian StyleKubilienė, Loreta, Aušra Griciūtė, Vilma Miglinė, Milda Kukulskienė, Aurima Stankūnienė, and Nida Žemaitienė. 2021. "How Does the Assessment of Work Organization during the COVID-19 Pandemic Relate to Changes in the Well-Being of Health System Workers?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 15: 8202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158202