Managers perception of hospital employees' effort-reward imbalance.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology Pub Date : 2023-06-06 DOI:10.1186/s12995-023-00376-4
Meike Heming, Johannes Siegrist, Rebecca Erschens, Melanie Genrich, Nicole R Hander, Florian Junne, Janna K Küllenberg, Andreas Müller, Britta Worringer, Peter Angerer
{"title":"Managers perception of hospital employees' effort-reward imbalance.","authors":"Meike Heming,&nbsp;Johannes Siegrist,&nbsp;Rebecca Erschens,&nbsp;Melanie Genrich,&nbsp;Nicole R Hander,&nbsp;Florian Junne,&nbsp;Janna K Küllenberg,&nbsp;Andreas Müller,&nbsp;Britta Worringer,&nbsp;Peter Angerer","doi":"10.1186/s12995-023-00376-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Hospitals are frequently associated with poor working conditions that can lead to work stress and increase the risk for reduced employee well-being. Managers can shape and improve working conditions and thereby, the health of their teams. Thus, as a prerequisite, managers need to be aware of their employees' stress levels. This study had two objectives: At first, it aimed to test the criterion validity of the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) questionnaire measuring psychosocial workload in hospital employees. Secondly, mean scales of the ERI questionnaire filled in by employees were compared with mean scales of an adapted ERI questionnaire, in which managers assessed working conditions of their employees.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Managers (n = 141) from three hospitals located in Germany assessed working conditions of their employees with an adapted external, other-oriented questionnaire. Employees (n = 197) of the mentioned hospitals completed the short version of the ERI questionnaire to assess their working conditions. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were applied to test factorial validity, using the ERI scales for the two study groups. Criterion validity was assessed with multiple linear regression analysis of associations between ERI scales and well-being among employees.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaires demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency of scales, although some indices of model fit resulting from CFA were of borderline significance. Concerning the first objective, effort, reward, and the ratio of effort-reward imbalance were significantly associated with well-being of employees. With regard to the second objective, first tentative findings showed that managers' ratings of their employees' effort at work was quite accurate, whereas their reward was overestimated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With its documented criterion validity the ERI questionnaire can be used as a screening tool of workload among hospital employees. Moreover, in the context of work-related health promotion, managers' perceptions of their employees' workload deserve increased attention as first findings point to some discrepancies between their perceptions and those provided by employees.</p>","PeriodicalId":48903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology","volume":"18 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10246112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-023-00376-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Hospitals are frequently associated with poor working conditions that can lead to work stress and increase the risk for reduced employee well-being. Managers can shape and improve working conditions and thereby, the health of their teams. Thus, as a prerequisite, managers need to be aware of their employees' stress levels. This study had two objectives: At first, it aimed to test the criterion validity of the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) questionnaire measuring psychosocial workload in hospital employees. Secondly, mean scales of the ERI questionnaire filled in by employees were compared with mean scales of an adapted ERI questionnaire, in which managers assessed working conditions of their employees.

Methods: Managers (n = 141) from three hospitals located in Germany assessed working conditions of their employees with an adapted external, other-oriented questionnaire. Employees (n = 197) of the mentioned hospitals completed the short version of the ERI questionnaire to assess their working conditions. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were applied to test factorial validity, using the ERI scales for the two study groups. Criterion validity was assessed with multiple linear regression analysis of associations between ERI scales and well-being among employees.

Results: The questionnaires demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency of scales, although some indices of model fit resulting from CFA were of borderline significance. Concerning the first objective, effort, reward, and the ratio of effort-reward imbalance were significantly associated with well-being of employees. With regard to the second objective, first tentative findings showed that managers' ratings of their employees' effort at work was quite accurate, whereas their reward was overestimated.

Conclusions: With its documented criterion validity the ERI questionnaire can be used as a screening tool of workload among hospital employees. Moreover, in the context of work-related health promotion, managers' perceptions of their employees' workload deserve increased attention as first findings point to some discrepancies between their perceptions and those provided by employees.

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
管理者对医院员工努力-回报不平衡的认知。
目的:医院经常与恶劣的工作条件联系在一起,这可能导致工作压力,并增加降低员工福利的风险。管理者可以塑造和改善工作条件,从而改善团队的健康状况。因此,作为先决条件,管理者需要了解员工的压力水平。本研究有两个目的:首先,它旨在检验努力-奖励不平衡(ERI)问卷测量医院员工心理社会工作量的标准效度。其次,将员工填写的ERI问卷的平均量表与管理者评估员工工作条件的ERI问卷的平均量表进行比较。方法:来自德国三家医院的管理人员(n = 141)用一份外部的、面向他人的问卷评估了员工的工作条件。上述医院的员工(n = 197)完成了ERI问卷的简短版本,以评估他们的工作条件。验证性因子分析(CFA)应用于测试因子效度,使用ERI量表对两个研究组。通过多元线性回归分析ERI量表与员工幸福感之间的关系来评估标准效度。结果:问卷在量表的内部一致性方面表现出可接受的心理测量特性,尽管CFA模型拟合的一些指标具有临界意义。在第一个目标中,努力、报酬和努力报酬失衡比例与员工幸福感显著相关。关于第二个目标,最初的初步发现表明,管理者对员工工作努力程度的评价是相当准确的,而他们的奖励则被高估了。结论:ERI问卷具有有效度,可作为医院员工工作量的筛选工具。此外,在与工作有关的健康促进方面,管理者对员工工作量的看法值得更多关注,因为初步调查结果表明,管理者的看法与员工提供的看法存在一些差异。
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 Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Aimed at clinicians and researchers, the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology is a multi-disciplinary, open access journal which publishes original research on the clinical and scientific aspects of occupational and environmental health. With high-quality peer review and quick decision times, we welcome submissions on the diagnosis, prevention, management, and scientific analysis of occupational diseases, injuries, and disability. The journal also covers the promotion of health of workers, their families, and communities, and ranges from rehabilitation to tropical medicine and public health aspects.
期刊最新文献
Retention of nickel, cobalt and chromium in skin at conditions mimicking intense hand hygiene practices using water, soap, and hand-disinfectant in vitro. Long-term course and factors influencing work ability and return to work in post-COVID patients 12 months after inpatient rehabilitation. Associations between job demand-control-support and high burnout risk among physicians in Sweden: a cross-sectional study. The prevalence of respiratory symptoms and diseases and declined lung function among foundry workers. Psychological morbidity among coal miners compared to other occupations in Appalachia.
×
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