4.4 Article

Effort-reward imbalance and self-rated health among Gambian healthcare professionals

期刊

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1347-0

关键词

ERI model; Healthcare workers; Sub-Saharan Africa; Gambia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model of work stress has been widely applied in investigating association between psychosocial factors at work and health. This study examined associations between perceived psychosocial work stress as measured by the ERI model and self-rated health (SRH) among nurses and environmental health officers (EHOs) working in secondary public healthcare facilities in the Gambia. Method: A cross-sectional study on a random sample of 287 health care professionals (201 nurses and 86 EHOs). A 22-item ERI questionnaire was used to collect data on the psychosocial factors defined by the ERI model. SRH was assessed using a single item measure. Results: The distribution of subjective health was not statistically different between nurses and EHOs. However, our study uncovered significant associations between perceived psychosocial work stress and subjective health. Specifically, we found that a perceived high effort-reward imbalance (ER-ratio > 1) is a significant risk factor for poor SRH, in both occupational groups. However, over-commitment was not significantly associated with poor SRH in the two groups. When efforts and rewards were considered as separate variables in the analysis, rewards were inversely associated with poor SRH in both groups. Conclusion: Because of the high perceived Effort-Reward Imbalance among healthcare professionals at secondary public healthcare facilities, it is necessary to modify working conditions through improvement of psychosocial work environment, such as reasonable allocation of resources to increase pay, incentives or other forms of rewards from government. Interventions that could mitigate and prevent stress at work are worth considering in future healthcare policies.

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

4.4
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