4.5 Article

Work-Life Balance and Mental Health Needs of Health Professionals During COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11469-021-00717-6

关键词

Work-life balance; Work addiction; Health professionals; COVID-19; Coronavirus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of work addiction and demographic factors on work-life balance and mental health needs of health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that living situation, gender, and working hours directly affected work-life balance, while work addiction had the highest impact on work-life balance and a moderate effect on mental health needs. The study indicated that health professionals' well-being was significantly influenced by these factors during the pandemic.
Health professionals constitute a group that is at a high risk of COVID-19. They have been found to experience difficulties in many issues, one of which is that they face the risk of infecting themselves and others due to interaction with high-risk patients. The present study investigates how demographical and individual factors and work addiction affected work-life balance and mental health needs of health professionals. The data of the present study were collected in the first wave of pandemic. The hypothesized structural equation model was rejected based on the fit indices. The second analysis of modified model was significant and indicated that whether health professionals live alone or with others such as family members had direct effects on work addiction, indirect effects on work-life balance, and needs for mental health. In addition, gender and working hours had direct effects on work-life balance. The highest effect on work-life balance was caused by work addiction. Moreover, work addiction had a moderate effect on mental health needs. As a result, the current study showed that work-life balance, work addiction, and the need for mental health were affected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

4.5
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