EXECUTIVE SUMMARY While the COVID-19 pandemic has added stressors to the lives of healthcare workers, it is unclear which factors represent the most useful targets for interventions to mitigate employee distress across the entire healthcare team. A survey was distributed to employees of a large healthcare system in the Southeastern United States, and 1,130 respondents participated. The survey measured overall distress using the 9-item Well-Being Index (WBI), work-related factors, moral distress, resilience, and organizational-level factors. Respondents were also asked to identify major work, clinical, and nonwork stressors. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate associations between employee characteristics and WBI distress score. Overall, 82% of employees reported high distress (WBI ≥ 2), with nurses, clinical support staff, and advanced practice providers reporting the highest average scores. Factors associated with higher distress included increased job demands or responsibilities, heavy workload or long hours, higher frequency of moral distress, and loneliness or social isolation. Factors associated with lower distress were perceived organizational support, work control, perceived fairness of salary cuts, and resilience. Most factors significantly associated with distress—heavy workloads and long hours, increased job demands, and moral distress, in particular—were work-related, indicating that efforts can be made to mitigate them. Resilience explained a small portion of the variance in distress relative to other work-related factors. Ensuring appropriate staffing levels may represent the single largest opportunity to significantly move the needle on distress. However, the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the healthcare system may represent a barrier to addressing these stressors.
We theorize that the social conditions surrounding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic have the potential to increase the importance of families for health and widen existing inequalities. We suggest three primary tenets important for understanding families and health during COVID‐19. First, risks of specific COVID‐19 outcomes and other health problems are unevenly distributed across families. Second, how families impact health during the COVID‐19 pandemic is conditional on public policies, organizational decisions, and concurrent events. Third, many health inequalities driven by racism, sexism, classism, and other oppressive societal forces are amplified during COVID‐19, but the extent to which this is occurring is shaped by families and by the public policies, organizational decisions, and concurrent events that also impact families and health. As health disparities continue to emerge from this pandemic, we call on researchers and policymakers to pay attention to the multiple ways that families matter.
Purpose Challenges ushered by the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increased focus on the mental well-being of the healthcare workforce. Despite the important contribution non-clinician biomedical researchers make to the mission of academic medical centers, the well-being of this unique population remains understudied in the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational correlates of distress among non-clinician biomedical researchers. Methods A survey was delivered to employees of a large academic medical center in the southeastern United States, including non-clinician biomedical researchers. Participants were asked to assess their own well-being using the validated Well-Being Index (WBI) tool, resilience, work and nonwork-related stressors and demographic descriptors. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were conducted, and binary logistic regression was used to examine predictors of increased odds of overall distress. Results Nearly 44% of surveyed non-clinician biomedical researchers met the threshold for high distress which indicates an increased risk of suicidal ideation, turnover intention, and burnout. The major correlates of distress were at the organizational level, including perceived organizational support (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.90), heavy workload and long hours (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.53–6.88), inability or lack of support to take time off (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.03–7.66) and conflict with supervisor (OR 5.03, 95% CI 1.13–22.1). While lower individual resilience (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.88) was statistically significantly associated with greater distress, it accounted for less than 10% of the overall variance when controlling for other work-related factors. Conclusion These findings suggest that developing organizational interventions that address institutional support for non-clinician biomedical researchers within academic medical centers represents an important opportunity to reduce distress within this population. While emphasizing individual resiliency as an important in the pursuit of well-being, it is also the responsibility of the organization to create and foster an environment in which employees can access their own resilience.
Background: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems experienced significant challenges, including lower revenues from elective procedures, limited supplies, a massive influx of patients and psychologically distressed employees. National reports of well-being showed striking rates of burnout among healthcare workers. Prior research depicted how the pandemic affected all categories of healthcare workers, yet there is little evidence showing what specific factors hinder each type of employee.Methods: Employees from a large medical center in the Southeastern United States (US) (n=1,130) participated in an online survey, responding to a series of questions about their daily stressors, working conditions, and distress as measured by a 9-item Well-Being Index (WBI), and providing open-ended responses about additional stressors and positive changes in their work. With an analytic sample of 1,037, we used stepwise analysis for each employee group to identify which stressors have a significant association with their overall distress. Using a convergent mixed methods approach, we corroborate our quantitative findings with qualitative themes from the open-ended responses.Results: Among all types of employees i.e., Physicians, Nurses, Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), Clinical support staff and Non-clinical staff, moral distress was associated with higher WBI distress.Qualitative themes showed employees were mainly concerned with quality of and access to care for patients.Stress triggered by heavy workload in the setting of increased pandemic-related responsibilities and decreased personnel was associated with a high level of WBI distress among all types of employees, whereas other significant stressors differed by role.Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic created a myriad of work and non-work-related stressors hindering all healthcare workers' psychological well-being differently. Working conditions and responsibilities for each role are unique. Institutional policies must contemplate the distinctiveness of stressors and distress across employee sub-groups to properly mitigate psychological distress.
Objectives: Previous research on the association between education and older adult health in the U.S. has not included Puerto Rico. We investigated the effects of multigenerational educational attainment and chronic conditions among older Puerto Ricans residing on the archipelago’s main island. Methods: Data were from the longitudinal Puerto Rican Elderly Health Conditions Project. Generalized Poisson regression models were used to examine if multigenerational educational attainment was associated with chronic disease. Results: Findings show that parental educational attainment was associated with fewer chronic conditions among females at baseline but not at follow-up, suggesting that the effects of parental education on health over time are less pronounced. For males, educational attainment across the three generations was not significantly associated with chronic disease at baseline or follow-up. Discussion: Multigenerational education is an important determinant of older adult health that continues to be relevant in Puerto Rico and the Latin American and Hispanic-Caribbean region.
Background: Hospitals have begun to formally develop and implement structures and processes to further promote interprofessional collaboration and leadership at the microsystem level (unit, service) with the goal to improve care quality, efficiency, and patient and provider experiences. Termed by some as the Accountable Care Team (ACT) model, the core components to date have included: (I) a designated physician-nursemanager leadership dyad, (II) cohorting of patients and team members to the unit as much as possible, (III) daily interprofessional team care planning rounds, (IV) proactive assessment of patient experience, and (V)access to unit-level data for performance improvement. The purpose of this paper is to describe an expanded model of the ACT intervention and understand whether ACT membership was associated with reduced distress during a major crisis, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: This cross-sectional survey study was conducted within a large academic medical center in the Southeast United States, which is in the process of implementing ACT interventions across 32 units. A total of 1,130 respondents took the survey with a response rate of 18 percent.Results: ACT members had a greater sense of community at work, felt greater support from the organization, and were less likely to report social isolation and loneliness as a major stressor. However, ACT members were also more likely to report heavy workload and long hours, and increased job demands as major stressors than non-members. ACT members were also more likely to be female, and to indicate childcare as a major stressor. Multivariate regression models indicated no statistically significant association between ACT membership and overall distress scores. Conclusions:Early results suggest that there may be benefits to ACT membership, but these benefits may be counteracted by additional work demands. Organizations must ensure adequate time and resources are allotted for those participating in ACT models.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.