Organisational level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

The stress of nursing: exploring communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS), effort-reward imbalance, and organizational support among a sample of U.S. working nurses

BACKGROUND

Nurses experience a constellation of negative outcomes such as lost productivity, based on their high levels of organizational stress. Following recommendations for best practices in health communication can dramatically improve the organizational climate for nurses and can have a significant effect on patient outcomes. In this study, we evaluate the impact of Communicative Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS) and effort-reward imbalance (ERI).

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was employed. A professional survey research vendor was contracted to obtain an appropriate national sample (N = 299) of working nurses in the United States of America. Participants completed an online closed-ended questionnaire for the quantitative portion of the study. Qualitative data were gathered from member-checking follow-up interviews.

RESULTS

Results of the quantitative analysis indicated that nurses experience CROS, that these experiences are distressing, that CROS functions as an effort in the effort-reward-imbalance model, and that CROS and ERI contribute to negative outcomes such as insomnia, productivity lost, and poor general health. Specifically, a moderated moderation model accounted for 53% of the variance [F (7,290) = 47.363, p < .001] indicating that nurses with high levels of CROS distress and low levels of organizational support experienced the highest level of ERI in the presence of high nursing stress, t (296) = 3.05, p = .03, 95% CI [0.0038, 0.0178]. These findings were validated through member-checking qualitative interviews and specific overarching themes were explicated.

CONCLUSIONS

CROS is an important variable in understanding the experience of nursing stress. Furthermore, CROS serves as an effort in the ERI Model and serves to exacerbate nursing stress. We recommend practical implications for the improvement of psychosocial stress in an occupational environment for nurses.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Psychological distress in the workplace: The indirect contribution of work organization conditions to work performance

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress affects between 5 and 27% of the general population [1]. Workers facing stressful work conditions are especially at high risk for experiencing psychological distress [1]. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between work organization conditions and work performance via psychological distress. While the individual contribution of work organization conditions to psychological distress and work performance has been examined in the scientific literature, their combined influence on work performance remains relatively unknown. METHODS: To adjust for design effects, we relied on cluster sampling (employees working in organizations). MPlus was used to conduct path analyses [2]. RESULTS: While psychological demands, number of hours worked, and job insecurity were positively associated with psychological distress, job recognition was negatively associated with it. In the same vein, irregular work schedules and job insecurity seem to be negatively associated with work performance. On the one hand, skill utilization, decision latitude, recognition, and job promotion, all seemed to be positively associated with employee’s work performance. On the other hand, psychological demands, number of hours worked, and job insecurity were negatively and indirectly associated with work performance. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the indirect association between work variables and workers’ psychological distress could promote their work performance. Understanding this association could help shed light on the difficulties employees with psychological distress face while meeting their job requirements. The results of this study should serve as a reminder to intervene on work organization conditions.

A multilevel analysis of the role personality play between work organization conditions and psychological distress

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress in the workplace is usually attributed to work-related variables as well as non-work-related variables. Individuals working in the same organization can differ in terms of their appraisal of work-related stressors and coping strategies used to face them. The present study aims to evaluate the moderating role personality plays between work organizations conditions and psychological distress in a large sample of Canadian participants working in various occupations and workplaces.

METHODS

Multilevel regression analyses were conducted on a sample that followed a hierarchical structure with workers (N1 = 1958) nested in workplaces (N2 = 63). The direct contribution of workplace and personality was tested in a variance component model as a first step. Following this initial step, we introduced interaction variables by blocks of 11. Those interaction variables refer to each interaction combined with a specific personality variable.

RESULTS

Psychological demands, number of hours worked, job insecurity, neuroticism, and agreeableness were associated with higher levels of psychological distress. Inversely, decision authority, job recognition, self-esteem, locus of control were associated with lower levels of psychological distress. Lastly, agreeableness played a moderating role between low social support garnered from one's supervisor and psychological distress.

CONCLUSIONS

To intervene on work-related variables, organizations could reduce psychological demands, minimize the number of hours worked through job redesign, allow teleworking and encourage work schedule flexibility. To reduce job insecurity, organizations could explicitly communicate future organizational plans. In the same vein, decision authority could be targeted by reducing hierarchical steps and increasing autonomy. Lastly, the results pertaining to agreeableness stand in contrast with those of previous studies. We assumed that workers scoring high on agreeableness tend to put themselves last and please others first. These tendencies could make them more susceptible to health issues. With that said, work environments still need workers who are agreeable and nice to be around. To prevent high levels of agreeableness leading to psychological distress, training and information workshops are recommended. Those include stress management interventions and workshops pertaining to time management and relaxation techniques.

Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these.

OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

Process Evaluation of a Participative Organizational Intervention as a Stress Preventive Intervention for Employees in Swedish Primary Health Care

This study is a process evaluation of a trial examining the effects of an organizational intervention (Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System or ProMES) on employee stress. The aims were to explore the implementation process and fidelity to the intervention guidelines, examine the influence of contextual factors (hindrances and facilitators) and explore participants' experience of working with ProMES. We used the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance to guide the process evaluation. The recruitment, reach and dose delivered were satisfactory and participation high. The employees felt ProMES clarified priorities, gave control and increased participation in decision-making. However, difficulty in obtaining statistical productivity data from the central administration office (a central feature of the intervention) hindered full implementation and regular feedback meetings. Staffing shortages interfered with the implementation process, while having seven design teams and one consultant prevented all occupational groups from working simultaneously. A detailed examination of access to necessary organizational data should be undertaken before implementing ProMES. We recommend a better introduction for new employees, more work on design and packaging and giving employees more training in how to use the software program. The study contributes to our understanding of process evaluations in research into organizational stress management interventions.

IMPROVEjob - Participatory intervention to improve job satisfaction of general practice teams: a model for structural and behavioural prevention in small and medium-sized enterprises - a study protocol of a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background

Perceived high chronic stress is twice as prevalent among German general practitioners (GPs) and non-physician medical staff compared to the general population. The reasons are multi-factorial and include patient, practice, healthcare system and societal factors, such as multi-morbidity, the diversity of populations and innovations in medical care. Also, practice-related factors, like stressful patient-staff interactions, poor process management of waiting times and lack of leadership, play a role. This publicly funded study evaluates the effectiveness of the newly developed participatory, interdisciplinary, and multimodal IMPROVEjob intervention on improving job satisfaction among general practice personnel. The intervention aims at structural stress prevention with regard to working conditions and behavioural stress prevention for leaders and other practice personnel.

Methods

In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, a total of 56 general practices will be assigned to either (1) participation in the IMPROVEjob intervention or (2) the waiting-list control group. The IMPROVEjob intervention consists of the following elements: three workshops, a toolbox with supplemental material and an implementation period with regular contact to so-called IMPROVEjob facilitators. The first workshop, addressing leadership issues, is designed for physicians with leadership responsibilities only. The two subsequent workshops target all GP and non-physician personnel; they address issues of communication (with patients and within the team), self-care and team-care and practice organisation. During the 9-month implementation period, practices will be contacted by IMPROVEjob facilitators to enhance motivation. Additionally, the practices will have access to the toolbox materials online. All participants will complete questionnaires at baseline and follow up. The primary outcome is the change in job satisfaction as measured by the respective scale of the validated German version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ, version 2018). Secondary outcomes obtained by questionnaires and - qualitatively - by facilitators comprise psychosocial working conditions including leadership aspects, expectations and experiences of the workshops, team and individual efforts and organisational changes.

Discussion

It is hypothesised that participation in the IMPROVEjob intervention will improve job satisfaction and thus constitute a structural and behavioural prevention strategy for the promotion of psychological wellbeing of personnel in general practices and prospectively in other small and medium sized enterprises.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00012677. Registered on 16 October 2019. Retrospectively, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial. HTML&TRIAL_ID = DRKS00012677.