↓ Skip to main content

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
534 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.20161341t1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jani H. Ruotsalainen, Jos H. Verbeek, Albert Mariné, Consol Serra

Abstract

Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress which may lead to serious mental and physical health problems. To evaluate the effectiveness of work and person-directed interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials Specialised Register, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Cochrane Occupational Health Field database. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For work-directed interventions interrupted time series and prospective cohort were also eligible. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed where appropriate. We identified 14 RCTs, three cluster-randomised trials and two crossover trials, including a total of 1,564 participants in intervention groups and 1,248 controls. Two trials were of high quality. Interventions were grouped into 1) person-directed: cognitive-behavioural, relaxation, music-making, therapeutic massage and multicomponent; and 2) work-directed: attitude change and communication, support from colleagues and participatory problem solving and decision-making, and changes in work organisation. There is limited evidence that person-directed interventions can reduce stress (standardised mean difference or SMD -0.85; 95% CI -1.21, -0.49); burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (weighted mean difference or WMD -5.82; 95% CI -11.02, -0.63) and lack of Personal Accomplishment (WMD -3.61; 95% CI -4.65, -2.58); and anxiety: state anxiety (WMD -9.42; 95% CI -16.92, -1.93) and trait anxiety (WMD -6.91; 95% CI -12.80, -1.01). One trial showed that stress remained low a month after intervention (WMD -6.10; 95% CI -8.44, -3.76). Another trial showed a reduction in Emotional Exhaustion (Mean Difference or MD -2.69; 95% CI -4.20, -1.17) and in lack of Personal Accomplishment (MD -2.41; 95% CI -3.83, -0.99) maintained up to two years when the intervention was boosted with refresher sessions. Two studies showed a reduction that was maintained up to a month in state anxiety (WMD -8.31; 95% CI -11.49, -5.13) and trait anxiety (WMD -4.09; 95% CI -7.60, -0.58). There is limited evidence that work-directed interventions can reduce stress symptoms (Mean Difference or MD -0.34; 95% CI -0.62, -0.06); Depersonalization (MD -1.14; 95% CI -2.18, -0.10), and general symptoms (MD -2.90; 95% CI -5.16, -0.64). One study showed that the difference in stress symptom level was nonsignificant at six months (MD -0.19; 95% CI -0.49, 0.11). Limited evidence is available for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce stress levels in healthcare workers. Larger and better quality trials are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 534 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 520 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 96 18%
Student > Bachelor 57 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 10%
Researcher 52 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 51 10%
Other 107 20%
Unknown 116 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 21%
Psychology 95 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 74 14%
Social Sciences 39 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 3%
Other 67 13%
Unknown 131 25%