↓ Skip to main content

The Importance of Context in Screening in Occupational Health Interventions in Organizations: A Mixed Methods Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
The Importance of Context in Screening in Occupational Health Interventions in Organizations: A Mixed Methods Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01347
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michela Vignoli, Karina Nielsen, Dina Guglielmi, Maria C. Tabanelli, Francesco S. Violante

Abstract

In occupational health interventions, there is a debate as to whether standardized or tailored measures should be used to identify which aspects of the psychosocial work environment should be targeted in order to improve employees' well-being. Using the Job Demands-Resources model, the main aim of the present study is to demonstrate how a mixed methods approach to conducting screening enables the identification of potential context-dependent demands and resources in the workplace, which should to be targeted by the intervention. Specifically, we used a mixed methods exploratory sequential research design. First, we conducted four focus groups (N = 37) in a sample of employees working in grocery stores in Italy. The qualitative results allowed to identify one possible context-specific job demand: the use of a work scheduling IT software, whose implementation resulted in a high rotation between different market's departments. From the qualitative results, this context-specific demand seemed to be related to workers' well-being. Thus, in a subsequent questionnaire survey (N = 288), we included this demand together with generic measures of social support and psychological well-being. Results confirmed that this context-specific job demand was related to emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, it was found that social support moderated the relationship between this specific job demand and emotional exhaustion showing among employees whose activities depended on the IT software, employees that perceived higher levels of social support from colleagues experienced lower levels of emotional exhaustion with respect to their colleagues who perceived lower levels of social support. The present study confirms that mixed methods approach is useful in occupational health intervention research and offers a way forward on helping organizations prioritize their intervention activities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 23 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 23%
Social Sciences 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,934,677
of 23,588,018 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,613
of 31,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,163
of 318,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#155
of 581 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,588,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 581 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.