3.9 Article

The influence of factors of work environment and burnout syndrome on self-efficacy of medical staff

Journal

ANNALS OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 304-309

Publisher

Inst Rural Health Lublin, Poland
DOI: 10.5604/12321966.1203895

Keywords

work environment; work organisation; quality of work; medical staff; professional burnout syndrome; self-efficacy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction and objective. Conditions of a healthy, friendly and safe work environment and proper work organisation increase self-efficacy and decrease or eliminate the factors causing the occurrence of burnout symptoms, all of which have a decisive impact on increasing the quality of work. The aim of the study was to analyse and assess the influence of factors of work environment and burnout syndrome on the self-efficacy of medical staff. Material and methods. The study comprised randomly selected professionally-active nurses working on hospital wards (N=405) on the area of two provinces in Poland. The study used the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory and a questionnaire concerning the factors that influence the process of work organisation at nursing positions in hospitals. Results. Lower scores for self-efficacy resulted in a worse assessment of development opportunities and promotion prospects (r=-0.11), participation in the decision-making process (r=-0.11) and teamwork (r=-0.10). Lower self-efficacy contributed to the occurrence of burnout symptoms r epsilon[-0.19 - -0.17]. Conclusions. Properly shaped and used organisational factors are stimulating for professional efficiency and effectiveness, and consequently, for the quality of nursing work. Negative assessment of the factors in the work environment contributes to the occurrence of burnout symptoms and decrease in self-efficacy. Nurses with lower self-efficacy more often experienced symptoms of burnout.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available