Exploring the Factor Structure of the Job Demands-Resources Measure With Patient Violence on Direct Care Workers in the Home Setting

Research on Abuse in Home Care: A Scoping Review

Home care is the preferred care option for most people who need support; yet abuse exists in these settings toward both home care workers and clients. There are no existing reviews that assess the scope of current research on abuse in home care, and tangentially related reviews are dated. For these reasons, a scoping review is warranted to map the current state of research on abuse in home care and examine current interventions in this field. Databases selected for searching were Medline and EMBASE on OVID, Scopus, and the following databases in EBSCOhost: Academic Search Complete, AgeLine, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Records were included if: (a) they were written in English; (b) the participants were home care workers or clients age 18 years or older; (c) they were published in journals; (d) they undertook empirical research; and (e) they were published within the last 10-year period. Following Graham et al. (2006), the 52 included articles are categorized as either knowledge inquiry or as intervention studies. We find three themes among knowledge inquiry studies: (1) prevalence and types of abuse in home care, (2) abuse in the context of living with dementia, and (3) working conditions and abuse. Analysis from the intervention studies suggest that not all organizations have specific policies and practices to prevent abuse, and no existing interventions to protect the well-being of clients were identified. Findings from this review can inform up-to-date practice and policymaking to improve the health and well-being of home care clients and workers.

Prevalence of type II workplace violence among home healthcare workers: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Home healthcare workers (HHWs) provide medical and nonmedical services to home-bound patients. They are at great risk of experiencing violence perpetrated by patients (type II violence). Establishing the reliable prevalence of such violence and identifying vulnerable subgroups are essential in enhancing HHWs' safety. We, therefore, conducted meta-analyses to synthesize the evidence for prevalence and identify vulnerable subgroups.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched for journal articles published between 1 January 2005 and 20 March 2019. A total of 21 studies were identified for this study. Meta-analyses of prevalence were conducted to obtain pooled estimates. Meta-regression was performed to compare the prevalence between professionals and paraprofessionals.

RESULTS

Prevalence estimates for HHWs were 0.223 for 12 months and 0.302 for over the career for combined violence types, 0.102 and 0.171, respectively, for physical violence, and 0.364 and 0.418, respectively, for nonphysical violence. The prevalence of nonphysical violence was higher than that of physical violence for professionals in 12 months (0.515 vs 0.135) and over the career (0.498 vs 0.224) and for paraprofessionals in 12 months (0.248 vs 0.086) and over the career (0.349 vs 0.113). Professionals reported significantly higher nonphysical violence for 12-month prevalence than paraprofessionals did (0.515 vs 0.248, P = .015).

CONCLUSION

A considerable percentage of HHWs experience type II violence with higher prevalence among professionals. Further studies need to explore factors that can explain the differences in the prevalence between professionals and paraprofessionals. The findings provide support for the need for greater recognition of the violence hazard in the home healthcare workplace.