Work-related stress indicator surveys in UK Ministry of Defence.

Q2 Medicine Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps Pub Date : 2019-04-01 Epub Date: 2018-12-07 DOI:10.1136/jramc-2018-001042
Sarah C Wattie, R S Bridger
{"title":"Work-related stress indicator surveys in UK Ministry of Defence.","authors":"Sarah C Wattie,&nbsp;R S Bridger","doi":"10.1136/jramc-2018-001042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) policy and strategy recommend the use of a 'Defence MODified' version of the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool to help managers identify risks of work-related stress among Defence personnel. The Defence MODified Tool ('Stress Indicator Survey') asks personnel to rate their perceptions of eight working conditions known to be significantly associated with work-related stress. MOD psychologists are developing a Defence norm group against which future survey scores can be compared. This article describes the use of the Stress Indicator Survey in MOD and gives an overview of findings from 2016 to 2018.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MOD psychologists conducted 27 Stress Indicator Surveys in 2016-2018. Data were collated from 6227 personnel for the Defence norm group and comparisons were conducted between Service personnel and MOD civil servants, and between Services (Royal Navy/Royal Marines (RN/RM), Army and Royal Air Force (RAF)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Service personnel had significantly more favourable perceptions than MOD civil servants of most working conditions. The RN/RM had significantly more favourable perceptions than either the Army or the RAF of all working conditions. These findings indicate differential risks of work-related stress in different groups of personnel.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Possible explanations for the observed differences in risk of work-related stress are discussed, including the nature of military life and planned changes to Defence civilian headcount. Examples of managerial actions to improve working conditions based on individual survey findings are given.</p>","PeriodicalId":17327,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps","volume":"165 2","pages":"128-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/jramc-2018-001042","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2018-001042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) policy and strategy recommend the use of a 'Defence MODified' version of the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool to help managers identify risks of work-related stress among Defence personnel. The Defence MODified Tool ('Stress Indicator Survey') asks personnel to rate their perceptions of eight working conditions known to be significantly associated with work-related stress. MOD psychologists are developing a Defence norm group against which future survey scores can be compared. This article describes the use of the Stress Indicator Survey in MOD and gives an overview of findings from 2016 to 2018.

Method: MOD psychologists conducted 27 Stress Indicator Surveys in 2016-2018. Data were collated from 6227 personnel for the Defence norm group and comparisons were conducted between Service personnel and MOD civil servants, and between Services (Royal Navy/Royal Marines (RN/RM), Army and Royal Air Force (RAF)).

Results: Service personnel had significantly more favourable perceptions than MOD civil servants of most working conditions. The RN/RM had significantly more favourable perceptions than either the Army or the RAF of all working conditions. These findings indicate differential risks of work-related stress in different groups of personnel.

Discussion: Possible explanations for the observed differences in risk of work-related stress are discussed, including the nature of military life and planned changes to Defence civilian headcount. Examples of managerial actions to improve working conditions based on individual survey findings are given.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国国防部工作压力指标调查。
简介:英国国防部(MOD)的政策和战略建议使用“国防修订”版的健康与安全执行管理标准指标工具,以帮助管理人员识别国防人员中与工作有关的压力风险。国防修正工具(“压力指标调查”)要求员工对八种已知与工作压力显著相关的工作条件的看法进行评级。国防部的心理学家正在建立一个国防标准小组,以便将来的调查得分进行比较。本文介绍了压力指标调查在国防部的使用情况,并概述了2016年至2018年的调查结果。方法:国防部心理医生于2016-2018年开展27项压力指标调查。从6227名国防标准组人员中整理数据,并在服务人员和国防部公务员之间,以及在服务(皇家海军/皇家海军陆战队(RN/RM),陆军和皇家空军(RAF))之间进行比较。结果:在职人员对大多数工作条件的好感度显著高于国防部公务员。皇家海军/皇家空军对所有工作条件的看法明显比陆军或皇家空军更有利。这些发现表明,不同人群的工作压力风险存在差异。讨论:讨论了对所观察到的工作压力风险差异的可能解释,包括军事生活的性质和国防文职人员人数的计划变化。给出了根据个别调查结果改善工作条件的管理行动的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps
Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps aims to publish high quality research, reviews and case reports, as well as other invited articles, which pertain to the practice of military medicine in its broadest sense. It welcomes material from all ranks, services and corps wherever they serve as well as submissions from beyond the military. It is intended not only to propagate current knowledge and expertise but also to act as an institutional memory for the practice of medicine within the military.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge of blood transfusion practices among medical students and residents. Differential Expression of MSTN Isoforms in Muscle between Broiler and Layer Chickens. Index to Volume LXXV. Museum Notes Twenty Years of Military Prehospital Care in the Eastern Sovereign Base Area, Cyprus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1