The Role of Work Engagement in Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic among Mental Healthcare Workers: An Italian Study to Improve Work Sustainability during Emergency Situations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
Present Study Aims
- -
- Positively correlated with and influences resilience levels, (H1);
- -
- Negatively correlated with and affects levels of stress and burnout, (H2);
- -
- Positively correlated with the use of positive coping strategies (such as problem-oriented coping or social support coping) and negatively correlated with negative (less functional) coping strategies (such as avoidance coping and emotional distress coping) and has influence or not in the use of these strategies (H3).
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Design and Procedures
- -
- UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92) analyzes engagement at work [39,40]. It consists of nine items investigating subjective work experience, rated on a 0–6 Likert scale where 0 identifies the “never” frequency of the experience and 6 the “always, every day” experience (0–54 total score range). The questionnaire is structured into three subscales: Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption in the work role and in the job context. Vigor means a high degree of energy, a constancy in one’s task, the presence of mental resilience, and the determination to self-realize through the working role. Dedication means being totally engaged by work and considering it, with pride and enthusiasm, fundamental to oneself. Absorption, on the other hand, indicates being completely absorbed in the role with difficulty in detachment [41]. For each questionnaire scale, subjects could be divided into 5 groups based on the answers scores’ percentiles: “Very low engagement”, “Low engagement”, “Average engagement”, “High engagement”, “Very high engagement” [42]. Some items examples are: “In my work I felt full of energy” for subscale Vigor, “I was immersed in my work” for subscale Absorption, and “I was enthusiastic about my work” for subscale Dedication;
- -
- BRCS (Brief Resilient Coping Scale; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71) measures resilience [43,44]. The questionnaire consists of 4 items that measure the skill of coping with hindering situations. The items are rated from 1 (total adherence to the item content) to 5 (no adherence to the expressed behavior). An example is: “I thought I could learn positive things when I had to deal with difficult situations.” Through the standardized cut-off, subjects can be divided into three groups based on their total score (4–20 score range): low resilience level (score , medium resilience level (14 score 16), and high resilience level (score 17);
- -
- LBQ (Link Burnout Questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77–0.85) investigates the level of burnout in helping professions [45,46]. The questionnaire consists of twenty-four items linked to subjective feelings experienced in the work context, with intensity from never to every day (6-points frequency scale). Items are grouped in four subscales: i) Psychophysical Exhaustion: feeling tired and under pressure, with a reduction of physical and mental resources, where an example is “The job made me feel active and vital”; ii) Relationship Deterioration: whether helping relationship with the user becomes alienated, an item is: “The users seemed ungrateful to me”; iii) Professional Ineffectiveness: whether professional problems become incomprehensible situations, an item example is “I felt inadequate to deal with my users’ problems”; and iv) Disillusionment: whether the proper role became a meaningless routine, where an item example is “My expectations related to this job were disappointed”. Subjects are then split into three groups based on their standardized score at each subscale: low burnout level (Stanine score , medium burnout level (3 Stanine score 7), and high burnout level (Stanine score ) [46];
- -
- HPSCS-I (Health Professions Stress and Coping Scale—nonmedical staff version; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.57–0.90) is a self-report questionnaire, specific to the health professions, designed to identify stress and coping skills in the work environment [47]. It proposes a series of potentially stressful work situations and measures the level of perceived stress and four possible coping mechanisms used to deal with it. The areas of stress were related to: Clinical Emergency as worsening clinical condition or actual death of patients; Problematic Relationships with patients and family members; Personal Attacks by colleagues, superiors, or patients’ family members; Personal Devaluation when requests, suggestions, and training needs are not listened to; Organizational Unforeseen Events that compromise the sanitary performance or interfere with one’s private life. Each area is investigated through four stimulus situations with four response options (“not at all”, “a little”, “quite a lot”, and “very much”). Then, for each situation, there is proposed a choice of coping strategies between being focused on solving the problem (Problem solving: when one seeks the most appropriate solutions and makes extensive use of personal resources and experiences); being centered on social support (Social Support: when one seeks advice and help in other people); being centered on emotional distress (Emotional distress: when one reacts emotionally and is unable to an adequately manage of the situation); being problem avoidance centered (Problem avoidance: when one tries to avoid totally the problematic situation). Based on T standardized scores, subjects are divided into five groups of stress level: very low stress level (T < 35, low stress level (35 T 45), medium stress level (45 T 55), high stress level (55 T 65), very high stress level (T ). Moreover, according to the frequency of using a certain coping strategy, participants are split into five groups: very rarely frequency (T < 35, rarely frequency (35 T 45), medium frequency (45 T 55), often frequency (55 T 65), very often frequency (T ).
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Engagement Role on Resilience, Burnout, Stress, and Coping Strategies
4.2.1. Resilience (H1)
4.2.2. Stress and Burnout (H2)
4.2.3. Use of Positive Coping Strategies (H3)
5. Discussions
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ministero della Salute. Health Emergency Dashboard COVID-19—Situazione Nel Mondo. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5338&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Bommersbach, T.; Dube, L.; Li, L. Mental Health Staff Perceptions of Improvement Opportunities around COVID-19: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Psychiatr. Q. 2021, 92, 1079–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Søvold, L.E.; Naslund, J.A.; Kousoulis, A.A.; Saxena, S.; Qoronfleh, M.W.; Grobler, C.; Münter, L. Prioritizing the Mental Health and Well-Being of Healthcare Workers: An Urgent Global Public Health Priority. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 679397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weiner-Lastinger, L.M.; Dudeck, M.A.; Allen-Bridson, K.; Dantes, R.; Gross, C.; Nkwata, A.; Tejedor, S.C.; Pollock, D.; Benin, A. Changes in the Number of Intensive Care Unit Beds in U.S. Hospitals during the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic, as Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network’s COVID-19 Module. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2021, 43, 1477–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buselli, R.; Corsi, M.; Veltri, A.; Baldanzi, S.; Chiumiento, M.; Del Lupo, E.; Marino, R.; Necciari, G.; Caldi, F.; Foddis, R.; et al. Mental Health of Health Care Workers (HCWs): A Review of Organizational Interventions Put in Place by Local Institutions to Cope with New Psychosocial Challenges Resulting from COVID-19. Psychiatry Res. 2021, 299, 113847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, S.; Dalton-Locke, C.; Vera San Juan, N.; Foye, U.; Oram, S.; Papamichail, A.; Landau, S.; Rowan Olive, R.; Jeynes, T.; Shah, P.; et al. Impact on Mental Health Care and on Mental Health Service Users of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Survey of UK Mental Health Care Staff. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2021, 56, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, A.E.; Hafstad, E.V.; Himmels, J.P.W.; Smedslund, G.; Flottorp, S.; Stensland, S.Ø.; Stroobants, S.; Van de Velde, S.; Vist, G.E. The Mental Health Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Workers, and Interventions to Help Them: A Rapid Systematic Review. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health Map of COVID-19 Evidence. Available online: https://www.fhi.no/en/qk/systematic-reviews-hta/map/ (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Robles, R.; Rodríguez, E.; Vega-Ramírez, H.; Álvarez-Icaza, D.; Madrigal, E.; Durand, S.; Morales-Chainé, S.; Astudillo, C.; Real-Ramírez, J.; Medina-Mora, M.-E.; et al. Mental Health Problems among Healthcare Workers Involved with the COVID-19 Outbreak. Braz. J. Psychiatry 2021, 43, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giusti, E.M.; Pedroli, E.; D’Aniello, G.E.; Stramba Badiale, C.; Pietrabissa, G.; Manna, C.; Stramba Badiale, M.; 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]
- Vanhaecht, K.; Seys, D.; Bruyneel, L.; Cox, B.; Kaesemans, G.; Cloet, M.; Van Den Broeck, K.; Cools, O.; De Witte, A.; Lowet, K.; et al. COVID-19 Is Having a Destructive Impact on Health-Care Workers’ Mental Well-Being. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2021, 33, mzaa158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shreffler, J.; Huecker, M.; Petrey, J. The Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Worker Wellness: A Scoping Review. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 21, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Wu, W.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, W. Recommended Psychological Crisis Intervention Response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Outbreak in China: A Model of West China Hospital. Precis. Clin. Med. 2020, 3, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenberg, N. Mental Health of Health-Care Workers in the COVID-19 Era. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2020, 16, 425–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministero della Salute Disposizioni Urgenti in Materia Di Superamento Degli Ospedali Psichiatrici Giudiziari. Available online: https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/dettaglioAtto?id=48672&articolo=1 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Conferenza Unificata 17 Ottobre 2013 Le Strutture Residenziali Psichiatriche. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/documentazione/p6_2_2_1.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=2460 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Associazione Italiana Tecnici della Riabilitazione Psichiatrica (A.I.Te.R.P.) Profilo Professionale del Terp. Available online: https://www.aiterp.it/profilo-professionale-del-terp/ (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Fond-Harmant, L.; Kane, H.; Gourret Baumgart, J.; Rusch, E.; Breton, H.; El-Hage, W.; Deloyer, J.; Lebas, M.-C.; Marazziti, D.; Thome, J.; et al. International Professional Practices in Mental Health, Organization of Psychiatric Care, and COVID-19: A Survey Protocol. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franza, F.; Basta, R.; Solomita, B.; Rosato, G. Il Ruolo Dell’empatia in Ambito Lavorativo: Riflessioni in Tempo Di Pandemia Da COVID-19. Telos 2021, 2, 125. [Google Scholar]
- Rapisarda, F.; Vallarino, M.; Cavallini, E.; Barbato, A.; Brousseau-Paradis, C.; De Benedictis, L.; Lesage, A. The Early Impact of the Covid-19 Emergency on Mental Health Workers: A Survey in Lombardy, Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almadani, A.H.; Alenezi, S.; Algazlan, M.S.; Alrabiah, E.S. Compassion Fatigue Among Practicing and Future Psychiatrists: A National Perspective. Cureus 2022, 14, e25417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minelli, A.; Silva, R.C.; Barlati, S.; Vezzoli, M.; Carletto, S.; Isabello, C.; Bortolomasi, M.; Nibbio, G.; Lisoni, J.; Menesello, V.; et al. The Elephant in the Room: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Stressful Psychological Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mental Healthcare Workers. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, S.M.; Zhiqiang, P.L. COVID19, Mental Wellbeing and Work Engagement. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De-la-Calle-Durán, M.-C.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.-L. Employee Engagement and Wellbeing in Times of COVID-19: A Proposal of the 5Cs Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimazu, A.; Nakata, A.; Nagata, T.; Arakawa, Y.; Kuroda, S.; Inamizu, N.; Yamamoto, I. Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 for General Workers. J. Occup. Health 2020, 62, e12132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kone, A.; Horter, L.; Rose, C.; Rao, C.Y.; Orquiola, D.; Thomas, I.; Byrkit, R.; Bryant-Genevier, J.; Lopes-Cardozo, B. The Impact of Traumatic Experiences, Coping Mechanisms, and Workplace Benefits on the Mental Health of U.S. Public Health Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann. Epidemiol. 2022, 74, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rose, S.; Hartnett, J.; Pillai, S. Healthcare Worker’s Emotions, Perceived Stressors and Coping Mechanisms during the COVID-19 Pandemic. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spoorthy, M.S.; Pratapa, S.K.; Mahant, S. Mental Health Problems Faced by Healthcare Workers Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic–A Review. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2020, 51, 102119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maiorano, T.; Vagni, M.; Giostra, V.; Pajardi, D. COVID-19: Risk Factors and Protective Role of Resilience and Coping Strategies for Emergency Stress and Secondary Trauma in Medical Staff and Emergency Workers—An Online-Based Inquiry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazza, C.; Colasanti, M.; Ricci, E.; Di Giandomenico, S.; Marchetti, D.; Fontanesi, L.; Verrocchio, M.C.; Ferracuti, S.; Roma, P. The COVID-19 Outbreak and Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers: The Role of Personality Traits, Attachment Styles, and Sociodemographic Factors. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sanz-Vergel, A.I. Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD–R Approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 389–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bogaert, P.; Peremans, L.; Van Heusden, D.; Verspuy, M.; Kureckova, V.; Van de Cruys, Z.; Franck, E. Predictors of Burnout, Work Engagement and Nurse Reported Job Outcomes and Quality of Care: A Mixed Method Study. BMC Nurs. 2017, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Salgado, J.; Domínguez-Salas, S.; Romero-Martín, M.; Romero, A.; Coronado-Vázquez, V.; Ruiz-Frutos, C. Work Engagement and Psychological Distress of Health Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 29, 1016–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Frutos, C.; Ortega-Moreno, M.; Allande-Cussó, R.; Ayuso-Murillo, D.; Dominguez-Salas, S.; Gomez-Salgado, J. Sense of Coherence, Engagement, and Work Environment as Precursors of Psychological Distress among Non-Health Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain. Saf. Sci. 2021, 133, 105033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, H.; Yao, M.; Zhang, D.; Liu, X. The Relationship among Organizational Identity, Psychological Resilience and Work Engagement of the First-Line Nurses in the Prevention and Control of COVID-19 Based on Structural Equation Model. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2020, 13, 2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, D.; Cho, I.-K.; Kim, K.; Lee, J.; Choi, J.M.; Kim, J.; Kim, C.; Yoo, S.; Chung, S. Mediating Effect of Public Service Motivation and Resilience on the Association Between Work-Related Stress and Work Engagement of Public Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Psychiatry Investig. 2022, 19, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministero della Salute; Istituto Superiore di Sanità Aggiornamento Settimanale Casi COVID-19 in Italia. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/home.html (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- De Bruin, G.P.; Henn, C.M. Dimensionality of the 9-Item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Psychol. Rep. 2013, 112, 788–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balducci, C.; Fraccaroli, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2010, 26, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannandrea, F.; Ferraro, P. Work Engagement la Ricerca della Felicità nei Luoghi di Lavoro; Edizioni FS: Milan, Italy, 2018; ISBN 8867632221. [Google Scholar]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9. APA PsycTests 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, V.G.; Wallston, K.A. The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment 2004, 11, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, M.; Lami, A.; Moret-Tatay, C. An Italian Adaptation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) and Attitudes during the Covid-19 Outbreak. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 641213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santinello, M.; Verzelletti, C.; Altoè, G. Sviluppo e Validazione Del Link Burnout Questionnaire. Svilupp. Validazione Link Burn. Quest. 2006, 1000–1012. [Google Scholar]
- Santinello, M.; Altonoè, G. Link Burnout Questionnaire. Man. dell’LBQ-Link Burn. Quest. 2007, 12–19. [Google Scholar]
- Ripamonti, C.; Steca, P.; Prunas, A. Health Professions Stress and Coping Scale: Studio Preliminare Di Un Nuovo Strumento Di Valutazione Dello Stress e Del Coping in Ambito Sanitario. Health Prof. Stress Coping Scale 2006, 1000–1017. [Google Scholar]
- JASP Team JASP 2020. Available online: https://jasp-stats.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Field, A.P.; Jeremy, M.; Field, Z. Discovering Statistics Using R; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Southend Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4462-0045-2. [Google Scholar]
- Friedrich, R.J. In Defense of Multiplicative Terms in Multiple Regression Equations. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1982, 26, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labrague, L.J. Psychological Resilience, Coping Behaviours and Social Support among Health Care Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 29, 1893–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flesia, L.; Monaro, M.; Mazza, C.; Fietta, V.; Colicino, E.; Segatto, B.; Roma, P. 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]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; De Jonge, J.; Janssen, P.P.M.; Schaufeli, W.B. Burnout and Engagement at Work as a Function of Demands and Control. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2001, 27, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sonnentag, S. Recovery, Work Engagement, and Proactive Behavior: A New Look at the Interface between Nonwork and Work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W.; Van Rhenen, W. Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-being? Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 173–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Test | Subscales | Cut-Off Level | N Subjects | % |
---|---|---|---|---|
UWES | Total score | Very low engagement | 1 | 4.76 |
Low engagement | 3 | 14.29 | ||
Average engagement | 11 | 52.38 | ||
High engagement | 4 | 19.05 | ||
Very high engagement | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Vigor | Very low engagement | 0 | 0 | |
Low engagement | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Average engagement | 10 | 47.62 | ||
High engagement | 4 | 19.05 | ||
Very high engagement | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Absorption | Very low engagement | 2 | 9.52 | |
Low engagement | 3 | 14.29 | ||
Average engagement | 9 | 42.86 | ||
High engagement | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Very high engagement | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Dedication | Very low engagement | 0 | 0 | |
Low engagement | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Average engagement | 9 | 42.86 | ||
High engagement | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Very high engagement | 2 | 9.52 | ||
BRCS | Low resilience | 11 | 52.38 | |
Medium resilience | 9 | 42.86 | ||
High resilience | 1 | 4.76 | ||
LBQ | Psychophysical Exhaustion | Low burnout level | 0 | 0 |
Medium burnout level | 15 | 71.43 | ||
High burnout level | 6 | 28.57 | ||
Relationship Deterioration | Low burnout level | 0 | 0 | |
Medium burnout level | 17 | 80.95 | ||
High burnout level | 4 | 19.05 | ||
Professional Ineffectiveness | Low burnout level | 0 | 0 | |
Medium burnout level | 14 | 66.67 | ||
High burnout level | 7 | 33.33 | ||
Disillusionment | Low burnout level | 0 | 0 | |
Medium burnout level | 16 | 76.19 | ||
High burnout level | 5 | 23.81 | ||
HPSCS-I-Stress | Total score | Very low stress | 8 | 38.10 |
Low stress | 7 | 33.33 | ||
Medium stress | 5 | 23.81 | ||
High stress | 1 | 4.76 | ||
Very high stress | 0 | 0 | ||
Clinical Emergency | Very low stress | 2 | 9.52 | |
Low stress | 7 | 33.33 | ||
Medium stress | 8 | 38.10 | ||
High stress | 4 | 19.05 | ||
Very high stress | 0 | 0 | ||
Personal Attack | Very low stress | 9 | 42.86 | |
Low stress | 9 | 42.86 | ||
Medium stress | 2 | 9.52 | ||
High stress | 1 | 4.76 | ||
Very high stress | 0 | 0 | ||
Problematic Relationships | Very low stress | 2 | 9.52 | |
Low stress | 6 | 28.57 | ||
Medium stress | 8 | 38.10 | ||
High stress | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Very high stress | 3 | 14.28 | ||
Personal Devaluation | Very low stress | 12 | 57.14 | |
Low stress | 7 | 33.33 | ||
Medium stress | 0 | 0 | ||
High stress | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Very high stress | 0 | 0 | ||
Organizational Unforeseen Events | Very low stress | 9 | 42.86 | |
Low stress | 8 | 38.10 | ||
Medium stress | 2 | 9.52 | ||
High stress | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Very high stress | 0 | 0 | ||
HPSCS-I-Coping | Problem Solving | Very rarely frequency | 9 | 42.86 |
Rarely frequency | 7 | 33.33 | ||
Medium frequency | 3 | 14.29 | ||
Often frequency | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Very often frequency | 0 | 0 | ||
Social Support | Very rarely frequency | 2 | 9.52 | |
Rarely frequency | 2 | 9.52 | ||
Medium frequency | 6 | 28.57 | ||
Often frequency | 8 | 38.10 | ||
Very often frequency | 3 | 14.29 | ||
Problem Avoidance | Very rarely frequency | 0 | 0 | |
Rarely frequency | 4 | 19.05 | ||
Medium frequency | 8 | 38.10 | ||
Often frequency | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Very often frequency | 4 | 19.05 | ||
Emotional Distress | Very rarely frequency | 0 | 0 | |
Rarely frequency | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Medium frequency | 10 | 47.62 | ||
Often frequency | 5 | 23.81 | ||
Very often frequency | 1 | 4.76 |
95% CI | 95% bca * CI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unstandardized | S.E. | Standardized | t | p | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |
(Intercept) | 9.08 | 1.22 | 7.45 | 4.751 × 10−7 | 6.53 | 11.63 | 6.19 | 11.17 | |
UWES-Dedication | 0.39 | 0.10 | 0.65 | 3.74 | 0.001 | 0.17 | 0.60 | 0.22 | 0.63 |
95% CI | 95% bca * CI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unstandardized | S.E. | Standardized | t | p | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |
(Intercept) | 10.40 | 0.65 | 16.12 | 1.537 × 10−12 | 9.05 | 11.75 | 9.04 | 11.67 | |
UWES-Vigor | −0.33 | 0.05 | −0.82 | −6.13 | 6.813 × 10−6 | −0.45 | −0.22 | −0.46 | −0.21 |
95% CI | 95% bca * CI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unstandardized | S.E. | Standardized | t | p | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |
(Intercept) | 9.25 | 0.98 | 9.48 | 1.242 × 10−8 | 7.21 | 11.30 | 7.25 | 10.88 | |
UWES-Vigor | −0.23 | 0.08 | −0.54 | −2.82 | 0.011 | −0.40 | −0.06 | −0.37 | −0.04 |
95% CI | 95% bca * CI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unstandardized | S.E. | Standardized | t | p | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |
(Intercept) | 10.36 | 0.53 | 19.59 | 4.634 × 10−14 | 9.25 | 11.46 | 9.51 | 11.46 | |
UWES-Dedication | −0.34 | 0.05 | −0.87 | −7.50 | 4.299 × 10−7 | -0.43 | −0.24 | −0.44 | −0.26 |
95% CI | 95% bca * CI | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unstandardized | S.E. | Standardized | t | p | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |
(Intercept) | 56.41 | 7.79 | 7.24 | 7.087 × 10−7 | 40.11 | 72.71 | 41.18 | 69.51 | |
UWES-Absorption | −1.76 | 0.64 | −0.54 | −2.76 | 0.012 | −3.09 | −0.43 | −3.02 | −0.60 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Fietta, V.; Bertoldo, F.; Gasperi, L.; Mazza, C.; Roma, P.; Monaro, M. The Role of Work Engagement in Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic among Mental Healthcare Workers: An Italian Study to Improve Work Sustainability during Emergency Situations. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043214
Fietta V, Bertoldo F, Gasperi L, Mazza C, Roma P, Monaro M. The Role of Work Engagement in Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic among Mental Healthcare Workers: An Italian Study to Improve Work Sustainability during Emergency Situations. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043214
Chicago/Turabian StyleFietta, Valentina, Francesca Bertoldo, Lorenzo Gasperi, Cristina Mazza, Paolo Roma, and Merylin Monaro. 2023. "The Role of Work Engagement in Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic among Mental Healthcare Workers: An Italian Study to Improve Work Sustainability during Emergency Situations" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043214
APA StyleFietta, V., Bertoldo, F., Gasperi, L., Mazza, C., Roma, P., & Monaro, M. (2023). The Role of Work Engagement in Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic among Mental Healthcare Workers: An Italian Study to Improve Work Sustainability during Emergency Situations. Sustainability, 15(4), 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043214