Managers perception of hospital employees' effort-reward imbalance.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals are frequently associated with poor working conditions that can lead to work stress and increase the risk for reduced employee well-being. Managers can shape and improve working conditions and thereby, the health of their teams. Thus, as a prerequisite, managers need to be aware of their employees' stress levels. This study had two objectives: At first, it aimed to test the criterion validity of the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) questionnaire measuring psychosocial workload in hospital employees. Secondly, mean scales of the ERI questionnaire filled in by employees were compared with mean scales of an adapted ERI questionnaire, in which managers assessed working conditions of their employees. METHODS: Managers (n = 141) from three hospitals located in Germany assessed working conditions of their employees with an adapted external, other-oriented questionnaire. Employees (n = 197) of the mentioned hospitals completed the short version of the ERI questionnaire to assess their working conditions. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were applied to test factorial validity, using the ERI scales for the two study groups. Criterion validity was assessed with multiple linear regression analysis of associations between ERI scales and well-being among employees. RESULTS: The questionnaires demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency of scales, although some indices of model fit resulting from CFA were of borderline significance. Concerning the first objective, effort, reward, and the ratio of effort-reward imbalance were significantly associated with well-being of employees. With regard to the second objective, first tentative findings showed that managers' ratings of their employees' effort at work was quite accurate, whereas their reward was overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: With its documented criterion validity the ERI questionnaire can be used as a screening tool of workload among hospital employees. Moreover, in the context of work-related health promotion, managers' perceptions of their employees' workload deserve increased attention as first findings point to some discrepancies between their perceptions and those provided by employees.

Group-Treatment for Dealing with the Work-Family Conflict for Healthcare Professionals.

Healthcare professionals' exposure to work-family conflict negatively affects the health and well-being of the whole family and organizational outcomes. Specified workplace interventions are lacking. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of a two-day group-treatment specifically designed for the needs of healthcare professionals with family responsibilities concerning participation, satisfaction with the intervention and family- and individual-related outcome variables. 24 mostly female (85.7%) participants of a community hospital in southern Germany attended the treatment. Data were collected at baseline (T0), directly after the treatment (T1) and two months later (T2). A two-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures showed a statistically significant time x group effect for self-efficacy (F = 5.29, p = 0.011). Contrasts displayed substantial pre-post (T1-T0, T2-T0) increases of self-efficacy in the intervention group as compared with the control group. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney-U tests are in line with these findings. The results indicate that the group-treatment adapted to the needs of healthcare professionals has the potential to boost self-efficacy among healthcare professionals and that participants were predominantly satisfied. Perspectives for future research and practical implications are discussed in the light of the manifest lack of healthcare professionals.

Cluster-randomised trial evaluating a complex intervention to improve mental health and well-being of employees working in hospital - a protocol for the SEEGEN trial.

BACKGROUND: Health care employees in Germany and worldwide are exposed to a variety of stressors. However, most of the hospitals in Germany lack a systematic workplace health management. Thus, this study aims at the evaluation of the effects of a behavioural as well as organisational (´complex´) intervention on the mental health and well-being of hospital staff. METHODS: Mental health in the hospital workplace (SEElische GEsundheit am Arbeitsplatz KrankeNhaus - SEEGEN) is an unblinded, multi-centred cluster-randomised open trial with two groups (intervention group (IG) and waitlist control group (CG)). Study participants in the intervention clusters will receive the complex intervention; study participants in the waitlist control clusters will receive the complex intervention after the last follow-up measurement. The intervention consists of five behavioural and organisational intervention modules that are specifically tailored to hospital employees at different hierarchical and functional levels. Hospital staff may select one specific module according to their position and specific needs or interests. Towards the end of the intervention roundtable discussions with representatives from all professional groups will be held to facilitate organisational change. Primary outcome is the change in emotional and cognitive strain in the working environment, from baseline (T0) to 6 month-follow up (T1), between IG and CG. In addition, employees who do not participate in the modules are included in the trial by answering shorter questionnaires (cluster participants). Furthermore, using mixed methods, a process evaluation will identify uptake of the intervention, and mediators and moderators of the effect. DISCUSSION: There seems to be growing psychological strain on people working in the health care sector worldwide. This study will examine whether investing directly in the hospital staff and their interpersonal relationship may lead to measurable benefits in subjective well-being at the workplace and improved economic performance indicators of the hospital. In case of a positive outcome, health promotion strategies looking at behavioural as well as organisational components within the hospital may gain additional importance, especially in regard of the growing financial pressure within the health sector. TRIAL REGISTRATION DRKS: The SEEGEN study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS) under the DRKS-ID DRKS00017249. Registered 08 October 2019, URL. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017249.