Occupational Stress In Healthcare Workers Research Articles

Do individual-level interventions focusing attention on or away from stress experience help reduce occupational stress in healthcare workers?

Do individual-level interventions focusing attention on or away from stress experience help reduce occupational stress in healthcare workers?

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

Occupational stress in healthcare workers at a university hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Occupational stress can be caused by a heavy workload, insecurity, or poor relationships with coworkers or supervisors. Previous research has showed a significant prevalence of stress in healthcare personnel. This study's aim was to identify health-care professionals at risk of occupational stress and determine the factors that may cause it. A cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare workers at a university hospital, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A questionnaire solicited information on participants' demographic data including the Workplace Stress Scale, questions on their relationships with colleagues, lack of equipment, job insecurity at the workplace, changing shift patterns, job satisfaction, availability of time to rest and relax, social and family problems, responsibilities, social support, rational/cognitive coping, doctor-patient relationship, and role overload. SPSS was used for data analysis; initial analysis included descriptive statistics, and t-test chi-square test. Multiple linear regression analysis used to identify factors associated with workplace stress. About 78% of the participants were 25-35 years old, 54% were males, and 60% were physicians. Working a shift reduced the job stress index by a statistically significant amount. However, longer working hours, higher education, and having many children contributed to higher job stress; in terms of severity, a good educational level and having many children marginally increased the risk whereas having shifts decreased the job stress. In terms of the absence of organizational support, it was discovered that having many children, a high educational level, and long working hours per day boosted it, although working a shift had a negative correlation. There is a need for continued administrative assistance and appropriate training programs to deal with potentially stressful situations at health facilities.

Occupational stress in healthcare workers during a COVID-19 pandemic

Healthcare workers experience overwhelming occupational and psycho-emotional stress during COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational stress leads to emotional burnout, can cause anxiety, depression and other psychopathological symptoms, influencing the quality of medical care. Existing situation necessitates to define risk factors, influencing occupational stress in healthcare workers in order to develop ways and methods to overcome it. Aim of the study was to identify socio-psychological factors associated with occupational stress in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 epidemic in Ukraine. Using a specially designed questionnaire, an online survey of 1,100 medical workers was conducted in all regions of Ukraine. Questioning was carried out over three weeks from 30.03.2020 to 21.04.2020, during the period of quarantine. The majority of respondents were female medical workers (79.9%). Age of respondents: up to 30 years – 179 (16.2%), from 31 to 60 – 824 (75.0%), over 60 – 97 (8.8%), among them doctors – 695 (63.1%) 236 nurses (21.5%), more than a third are general practitioners. Direct care for patients with COVID-19 was provided by 170 (15.5%) medical personnel. The analysis of the results of the questionnaire enabled to determine the peculiarities of medical worker`s response to the situation in connection with COVID-19 and highlight the emotional and behavioral factors associated with stress that are significant for most respondents. The study answered the questions regarding the perceived risk associated with the spread, contamination and death related to coronavirus. The most significant factors affecting the occurrence of stress in medical workers are identified. Along with this, factors contributing to stress coping have been identified as well. For subsequent statistical processing, all respondents were divided into two groups depending on the severity of the anxiety/fear. Comparison of these groups by socio-demographic indicators was done using the test χ2. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in all socio-demographic indicators, except for age. That is, only the age factor affected the severity of anxiety/fear among healthcare workers due to COVID-19 (p<0.05). Comparative analysis to assess the severity of stress in groups was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Healthcare workers with severe anxiety/fear have a high risk for development of occupational stress during a COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.01). In conclusion, the need for the development and implementation of methods for the prevention of occupational stress in medical workers in the current epidemic situation is substantiated.

Strategies for preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers: past evidence, current problems

SUMMARYThe problem of occupational stress in healthcare workers is hardly new, but effective interventions in this area are lacking despite being sorely needed – especially in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The results of a Cochrane review suggest that cognitive–behavioural therapy and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions, and that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions showed no effect on stress levels. However, the evidence is of low quality owing to risk of bias and lack of precision. This commentary critically appraises the review and attempts to put its findings into the current real-world context.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers: a Cochrane Review

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Physical relaxation for occupational stress in healthcare workers: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ObjectivesWork related stress is a major occupational health problem that is associated with adverse effects on physical and mental health. Healthcare workers are particularly vulnerable in the era of COVID‐19. Physical methods of stress relief such as yoga and massage therapy may reduce occupational stress. The objective of this systematic review and network meta‐analysis is to determine the effects of yoga, massage therapy, progressive muscle relaxation, and stretching on alleviating stress and improving physical and mental health in healthcare workers.MethodsDatabases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the use of physical relaxation methods for occupational stress in healthcare workers with any duration of follow‐up. Meta‐analysis was performed for standard mean differences in stress measures from baseline between subjects undergoing relaxation vs non‐intervention controls. Network meta‐analysis was conducted to determine the best relaxation method.ResultsFifteen trials representing 688 healthcare workers were identified. Random‐effects meta‐analysis shows that physical relaxation methods overall reduced measures of occupational stress at the longest duration of follow‐up vs baseline compared to non‐intervention controls (SMD −0.53; 95% CI [−0.74 to −0.33]; p < .00001). On network meta‐analysis, only yoga alone (SMD −0.71; 95% CI [−1.01 to −0.41]) and massage therapy alone (SMD −0.43; 95% CI [−0.72 to −0.14]) were more effective than control, with yoga identified as the best method (p‐score = .89).ConclusionPhysical relaxation may help reduce occupational stress in healthcare workers. Yoga is particularly effective and offers the convenience of online delivery. Employers should consider implementing these methods into workplace wellness programs.

Prevention of occupational stress in health-care workers during COVID-19 pandemic.

In a humanitarian crisis, healthcare workers are on the frontline in providing their services. Despite being crisis management personnel, healthcare workers may get exposed to occupational stress due to unprecedented circumstances, challenges in delivery of high-quality care, lack of resources, and most importantly for being at high risk to suffer from the impact of the situation itself. Therefore, it is imperative to maintain the mental health of healthcare workers on a regular basis and more so during a pandemic like COVID-19. For addressing the occupational stress in healthcare workers, a Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) based intervention is suggested, also supported by a Cochrane review, which can build/ improve/ enhance resilience, needed to shield individuals against the development of psychopathology, at the public health level in humanitarian crises. In addition to developing resilience, which will be helpful in combating anxiety, depression, somatization, and incapacitation, CBT will also help in dealing with the social isolation which has been part and parcel of COVID-19 and similar pandemic situations.

Cochrane in CORR®: Preventing Occupational Stress in Healthcare Workers.

Cochrane in CORR®: Preventing Occupational Stress in Healthcare Workers.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

Organisational level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effectiveness of organisational level interventions aimed at reducing stress in healthcare workers compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems. To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate. We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11). Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress as a result of lack of skills, organisational factors, and low social support at work. This may lead to distress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration in quality of life and service provision. To evaluate the effectiveness of work- and person-directed interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2 and Web of Science up to November 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For organisational interventions, interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were also eligible. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) where authors of trials used different scales to measure stress or burnout. We combined studies that were similar in meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. In this update, we added 39 studies, making a total of 58 studies (54 RCTs and four CBA studies), with 7188 participants. We categorised interventions as cognitive-behavioural training (CBT) (n = 14), mental and physical relaxation (n = 21), combined CBT and relaxation (n = 6) and organisational interventions (n = 20). Follow-up was less than one month in 24 studies, one to six in 22 studies and more than six months in 12 studies. We categorised outcomes as stress, anxiety or general health.There was low-quality evidence that CBT with or without relaxation was no more effective in reducing stress symptoms than no intervention at one month follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.27 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.13; 332 participants). But at one to six months follow-up in seven studies (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.16; 549 participants, 13% relative risk reduction), and at more than six months follow-up in two studies (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.70; 157 participants) CBT with or without relaxation reduced stress more than no intervention.CBT interventions did not lead to a considerably greater effect than an alternative intervention, in three studies.Physical relaxation (e.g. massage) was more effective in reducing stress than no intervention at one month follow-up in four studies (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.08; 97 participants) and at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.24; 316 participants). Two studies did not find a considerable difference in stress between massage and taking extra breaks.Mental relaxation (e.g. meditation) led to similar stress symptom levels as no intervention at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.15; 205 participants) but to less stress in one study at more than six months follow-up. One study showed that mental relaxation reduced stress more effectively than attending a course on theory analysis and another that it was more effective than just relaxing in a chair.Organisational interventions consisted of changes in working conditions, organising support, changing care, increasing communication skills and changing work schedules. Changing work schedules (from continuous to having weekend breaks and from a four-week to a two-week schedule) reduced stress with SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; 2 trials, 180 participants). Other organisational interventions were not more effective than no intervention or an alternative intervention.We graded the quality of the evidence for all but one comparison as low. For CBT this was due to the possibility of publication bias, and for the other comparisons to a lack of precision and risk of bias. Only for relaxation versus no intervention was the evidence of moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that CBT and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions. There is also low-quality evidence that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions have no effect on stress levels. More randomised controlled trials are needed with at least 120 participants that compare the intervention to a placebo-like intervention. Organisational interventions need better focus on reduction of specific stressors.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress as a result of lack of skills, organisational factors, and low social support at work. which may lead to distress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration in quality of life and service provision. To evaluate the effectiveness of work- and person-directed interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2 and Web of Science up to November 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For organisational interventions, interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were also eligible. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) where authors of trials used different scales to measure stress or burnout. We combined studies that were similar in meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. In this update, we added 39 studies, making a total of 58 studies (54 RCTs and four CBA studies), with 7188 participants. We categorised interventions as cognitive-behavioural training (CBT) (n = 14), mental and physical relaxation (n = 21), combined CBT and relaxation (n = 6) and organisational interventions (n = 20). Follow-up was less than one month in 24 studies, one to six in 22 studies and more than six months in 12 studies. We categorised outcomes as stress, anxiety or general health.There was low-quality evidence that CBT with or without relaxation was no more effective in reducing stress symptoms than no intervention at one month follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.27 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.13; 332 participants). But at one to six months follow-up in seven studies (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.16; 549 participants, 13% relative risk reduction), and at more than six months follow-up in two studies (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.70; 157 participants) CBT with or without relaxation reduced stress more than no intervention.CBT interventions did not lead to a considerably greater effect than an alternative intervention, in three studies.Physical relaxation (e.g. massage) was more effective in reducing stress than no intervention at one month follow-up in four studies (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.08; 97 participants) and at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.24; 316 participants). Two studies did not find a considerable difference in stress between massage and taking extra breaks.Mental relaxation (e.g. meditation) led to similar stress symptom levels as no intervention at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.15; 205 participants) but to less stress in one study at more than six months follow-up. One study showed that mental relaxation reduced stress more effectively than attending a course on theory analysis and another that it was more effective than just relaxing in a chair.Organisational interventions consisted of changes in working conditions, organising support, changing care, increasing communication skills and changing work schedules. Changing work schedules (from continuous to having weekend breaks and from a four-week to a two-week schedule) reduced stress with SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; 2 trials, 180 participants). Other organisational interventions were not more effective than no intervention or an alternative intervention.We graded the quality of the evidence for all but one comparison as low. For CBT this was due to the possibility of publication bias, and for the other comparisons to a lack of precision and risk of bias. Only for relaxation versus no intervention was the evidence of moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that CBT and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions. There is also low-quality evidence that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions have no effect on stress levels. More randomised controlled trials are needed with at least 120 participants that compare the intervention to a placebo-like intervention. Organisational interventions need better focus on reduction of specific stressors.

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

Background Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress as a result of lack of skills, organisational factors, and low social support at work.which may lead to distress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration in quality of life and service provision.Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of work- and person-directed interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers.Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL,NIOSHTIC-2 and Web of Science up to November 2013.Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For organisational interventions, interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were also eligible.Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) where authors of trials used different scales to measure stress or burnout. We combined studies that were similar in meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence.Main results In this update, we added 39 studies, making a total of 58 studies (54 RCTs and four CBA studies), with 7188 participants. We categorised interventions as cognitive-behavioural training (CBT) (n = 14), mental and physical relaxation (n = 21), combined CBT and relaxation (n = 6) and organisational interventions (n = 20). Follow-up was less than one month in 24 studies, one to six in 22 studies and more than six months in 12 studies. We categorised outcomes as stress, anxiety or general health. There was low-quality evidence that CBT with or without relaxation was no more effective in reducing stress symptoms than no intervention at one month follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.27 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.13; 332 participants). But at one to six months follow-up in seven studies (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.16; 549 participants, 13% relative risk reduction),and at more than six months follow-up in two studies (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.70; 157 participants) CBT with or without relaxation reduced stress more than no intervention.CBT interventions did not lead to a considerably greater effect than an alternative intervention, in three studies.Physical relaxation (e.g. massage) was more effective in reducing stress than no intervention at one month follow-up in four studies(SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.08; 97 participants) and at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.70 to-0.24; 316 participants). Two studies did not find a considerable difference in stress between massage and taking extra breaks.Mental relaxation (e.g. meditation) led to similar stress symptom levels as no intervention at one to six months follow-up in six studies(SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.15; 205 participants) but to less stress in one study at more than six months follow-up. One study showed that mental relaxation reduced stress more effectively than attending a course on theory analysis and another that it was more effective than just relaxing in a chair.Organisational interventions consisted of changes in working conditions, organising support, changing care, increasing communication skills and changing work schedules. Changing work schedules (from continuous to having weekend breaks and from a four-week to a two-week schedule) reduced stress with SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; 2 trials, 180 participants). Other organisational interventions were not more effective than no intervention or an alternative intervention.We graded the quality of the evidence for all but one comparison as low. For CBT this was due to the possibility of publication bias,and for the other comparisons to a lack of precision and risk of bias. Only for relaxation versus no intervention was the evidence of moderate quality.Authors' conclusions There is low-quality evidence that CBT and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions. There is also low-quality evidence that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions have no effect on stress levels.More randomised controlled trials are needed with at least 120 participants that compare the intervention to a placebo-like intervention. Organisational interventions need better focus on reduction of specific stressors.

Workplace violence and occupational stress in healthcare workers: a chicken-and-egg situation-results of a 6-year follow-up study.

Violence at work (WV) is an important occupational hazard for health care workers (HCWs). A number of surveys addressing the causes and effects of WV have shown that it is associated with work-related stress. However, it is not clear what direction this relationship takes, that is, whether job strain facilitates aggression against HCWs or WV is the cause of job strain. From 2003 to 2009, HCWs from a public health care unit were asked to self-assess their level of work-related stress and to report aggression that occurred in the 12-month period preceding their routine medical examination. In 2009, physical and mental health and job satisfaction were also assessed. A total of 698 out of 723 HCWs (96.5%) completed the study. Job strain and lack of social support were predictors of the occurrence of nonphysical aggression during the ensuing year. HCWs who experienced WV reported high strain and low support at work in the following year. The experience of nonphysical violence and a prolonged state of strain and social isolation were significant predictors of psychological problems and bad health at follow-up. The relationship between work-related distress and WV is bidirectional. The monitoring of workers through questionnaires distributed before their periodic examination is a simple and effective way of studying WV and monitoring distress. The findings of the present study may facilitate the subsequent design of participatory intervention for the prevention of violence in healthcare facilities. This should always be accompanied by measures designed to reduce strain and improve social support.