4.4 Article

Psychological distress and its associations with psychosocial work environment factors in four professional groups: A cross-sectional study

Journal

NURSING & HEALTH SCIENCES
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 698-707

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12856

Keywords

allied health; mental disorders; mental health; nursing; occupational health; occupational therapy; physiotherapy; psychological distress; social work; surveys and questionnaires; work environment

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that work-home interaction problems, job demands, support, and coping in the job were associated with psychological distress, with varying degrees of association between different professional groups. Therefore, work environment factors should be given continued attention to promote mental health.
This study aimed to explore associations between psychosocial work environment factors and psychological distress in four groups of professionals in Norway. Eight hundred fifty-six professionals participated in this cross-sectional study 6 years after graduation. Data were analyzed with linear and logistic regression analyses. For the sample as a whole, higher psychological distress was associated with higher demands, lower support, lower job satisfaction, more work-home interaction problems, and lower coping in the job. Work-home interaction problems increased the likelihood of having case-level psychological distress. The strength of associations between psychological distress and other factors, such as demands, support, and coping in the job, varied by professional group. In conclusion, problems concerned with work-home interaction were generally associated with higher psychological distress. Between professional groups, other independent variables were differently associated with psychological distress. Work environment factors should receive continued attention in efforts to promote mental health.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available