4.3 Article

Job stress and job satisfaction of physicians in private practice: comparison of German and Norwegian physicians

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-011-0725-5

关键词

Physicians in private practice; Germany; Norway; Job satisfaction; Occupational stress; Effort-reward imbalance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined job satisfaction and job stress of German compared to Norwegian physicians in private practice. A representative sample of physicians in private practice of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany (N = 414) and a nationwide sample of Norwegian general practitioners and private practice specialists (N = 340) were surveyed in a cross-sectional design in 2010. The questionnaire comprised the standard instruments Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) and a short form of the Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (ERI). Norwegian physicians scored significantly higher (< 0.01) on all items of the job satisfaction scale compared to German physicians (M 5.57, SD 0.74 vs. M 4.78, SD 1.01). The effect size was highest for the items freedom to choose method (d = 1.012), rate of pay (d = 0.941), and overall job satisfaction (d = 0.931). While there was no significant difference in the mean of the overall effort scale between German and Norwegian physicians, Norwegian physicians scored significantly higher (p < 0.01) on the reward scale. A larger proportion of German physicians (27.6%) presented with an effort/reward ratio beyond 1.0, indicating a risky level of work-related stress, compared to only 10.3% of Norwegian physicians. Working hours, effort, reward, and country differences accounted for 37.4% of the explained variance of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and reward were significantly higher in Norwegian than in German physicians. An almost threefold higher proportion of German physicians exhibited a high level of work-related stress. Findings call for active prevention and health promotion among stressed practicing physicians, with a special focus on improved working conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据