Background. Although the prevalence of work-limiting diseases is increasing, the interplay between occupational exposures and chronic medical conditions remains largely uncharacterized. Research has shown the detrimental effects of workplace bullying but very little is known about the humanistic and productivity cost in victims with chronic illnesses. We sought to assess work productivity losses and health disutility associated with bullying among subjects with chronic medical conditions. Methods. Participants (N = 1717) with chronic diseases answered a self-administered survey including sociodemographic and clinical data, workplace bullying experience, the SF-12 questionnaire, and the Work Productivity Activity Impairment questionnaire. Results. The prevalence of significant impairment was higher among victims of workplace bullying as compared to nonvictims (SF-12 PCS: 55.5% versus 67.9%, p < 0.01; SF-12 MCS: 59.4% versus 74.3%, p < 0.01). The adjusted marginal overall productivity cost of workplace bullying ranged from 13.9% to 17.4%, corresponding to Italian Purchase Power Parity (PPP) 2010 US$ 4182–5236 yearly. Association estimates were independent and not moderated by concurrent medical conditions. Conclusions. Our findings demonstrate that the burden on workers' quality of life and productivity associated with workplace bullying is substantial. This study provides key data to inform policy-making and prioritize occupational health interventions.

No abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic is currently a severe challenge for healthcare workers, with a considerable impact on their mental health. In order to focus preventive and rehabilitation measures it’s fundamental to identify risk factors of such psychological impairment. We designed an observational longitudinal study to systematically examine the psychological wellbeing of all employees in a large University Hospital in Italy, using validated psychometric scales in the context of the occupational physician’s health surveillance, in collaboration with Psychiatric Unit. Methods The study started after ethical approval in August 2020. For each worker, the psychological wellbeing is screened in two steps. The first level questionnaire collects sociodemographic characteristics, personal and occupational COVID-19 exposure, worries and concerns about COVID-19, general psychological discomfort (GHQ-12), post-traumatic stress symptoms (IES-R) and anxiety (GAD-7). Workers who score above the cut-off in at least one scale are further investigated by the second level questionnaire composed by PHQ-9, DES-II and SCL-90. If second level shows psychological impairments, we offer individual specialist treatment (third level). We plan to follow-up all subjects to monitor symptoms and possible chronicization; we aim to investigate potential risk factors through univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regressions. Results Preliminary results refer to a sample of 550 workers who completed the multi-step evaluation from August to December 2020, before vaccination campaign started. The participation rate was 90%. At first level screening, 39% of the subjects expressed general psychological discomfort (GHQ-12), 22% post-traumatic stress symptoms (IES-R), and 21% symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7). Women, nurses, younger workers, subjects with COVID-19 working exposure and with an infected family member showed significantly higher psychological impairment compared to colleagues. After the second level screening, 12% and 7% of all workers showed, respectively, depressive and dissociative symptoms; scorings were significantly associated with gender and occupational role. We are currently extending sample size and evaluating subjects over a period of further 12 months. Conclusions The possibility to perform a systematic follow-up of psychological wellbeing of all hospital workers, directly or indirectly exposed to pandemic consequences, constitutes a unique condition to detect individual, occupational, and non-occupational risk factors for psychological impairment in situations of prolonged stress, as well as variables associated with symptoms chronicization.

Background Understanding how patients generate preferences for administration route alternatives may improve health-care delivery and clinical outcomes. Recently, novel biological therapies with subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration routes have been approved for severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of our study was to assess the preferred route of biologic therapy administration and related beliefs among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional observational survey study. Patients answered an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire after an outpatient visit in pulmonary disease clinics located throughout Italy. Socio-demographic and clinical information together with the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Work Productivity Impairment Scale and the medical resources utilization module of the Health & Work Survey were collected. Patients beliefs and preference towards SC and IV administration were investigated by means of an ad hoc 13 item questionnaire. Results: the main findings 150 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the questionnaire (47.3% males). Preference for IV and SC administration was 18.7% and 81.3%, respectively. Compared with patients preferring SC formulation, patients that favored IV were older (p ​= ​0.04), less likely to escalate corticosteroid dose (p ​= ​0.03) and had emergency room (ER) access (p ​= ​0.009) during asthma exacerbations. Patients felt that SC was more convenient than IV, but this belief was not associated with higher likelihood of preferring SC administration. IV formulations were more likely associated with quicker and more effective drug action (p ​= ​0.0001), procedural safety and medical oversight (p ​= ​0.0002) and social support (p ​= ​0.007). Predictors of IV preference were represented by the association of worse asthma control and increased use of ER services, and by beliefs toward formulation effectiveness/efficiency in reducing symptoms (p ​= ​0.04 and p ​< ​0.0001, respectively). The model achieved excellent discrimination of administration route preference (area under the curve ​= ​0.87). Conclusions Preference is guided by partially misleading beliefs, which may generate wrong expectations that in turn can affect treatment satisfaction and adherence. Convenience and efficacy beliefs for drugs with different routes of administration always should be discussed with patients to achieve informed shared-decision making. Trial registration Not applicable.

Our findings showed that PTSD is common among employee victims of workplace robbery. Our results also suggest the importance of subjective variables, such as personal perception of robbery severity and early emotional reaction, in identifying people at higher risk of developing PTSD.

Our data corroborate previous findings suggesting that cognitive impairment is a feature of unipolar depressive disorders partially independent of the severity of other symptoms, and may represent a specific target of therapy with a strong impact on patients' functioning and quality of life.

Objective Literature suggests that home care professionals could be at higher risk of burnout than their colleagues in hospital settings, but research on home-based palliative care is still limited. Our study investigates psychosocial risk factors and burnout among workers involved in palliative care, comparing inpatient hospice, and home care settings. Method A cross-sectional study was carried out in a single palliative care organization providing inpatient hospice-based and home care-based assistance in a large urban area of Northern Italy. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire collecting socio-demographic and occupational data, psychosocial risk factors, and burnout scales (Psychosocial Safety Climate 4; Conflict and Offensive Behavior — COPSOQ II; Work Life Boundaries; Work-home Interaction; Peer Support — HSE; Copenhagen Burnout Inventory). Results The study sample included 106 subjects (95% of the overall eligible working population) who were predominantly female (68%) and nurses (57%), with a mean age of 41 years. Compared to inpatient hospice staff, home care workers reported more frequent communications with colleagues (p = 0.03) and patients/caregivers (p = 0.01), while there were no differences in the perception of work intrusiveness. Inpatient hospice workers showed lower peer support (p = 0.08) and lower psychosocial safety climate (p = 0.001) than home care colleagues. The experience of aggressive behaviors was rare, and it was relatively more frequent among inpatient hospice workers, female workers, and health assistants. Average scores of burnout scales were similar for both groups except for caregiver-related burnout, which was higher among inpatient hospice workers compared to home care colleagues (p = 0.008). The number of subjects at risk for work-related burnout was similar for both groups. Significance of results Our study confirms the presence of psychological and physical fatigue in both home-based and inpatient hospice palliative care. Results suggest that home care assistance may not be characterized by higher psychological burden compared to inpatient hospice setting. Given the general tendency to increase home-based care in our aging population, it is essential to broaden the knowledge of psychosocial risks in this specific context to properly protect workers’ health.

IntroductionItaly was the first Western country affected by the COVID-19 pandemic that still constitutes a severe challenge for healthcare workers (HCWs), with a deep impact on their mental health. Several studies confirmed that a considerable proportion of HCW developed adverse psychological impairment (PsI). To focus on preventive and rehabilitation measures, it is fundamental to identify individual and occupational risk factors. We systematically assessed possible PsI among all employees in a large university hospital in Italy, using validated psychometric scales in the context of occupational health surveillance.MethodsIn the period of July 2020 to July 2021, we enrolled 990 HCWs. For each subject, the psychological wellbeing was screened in two steps. The first-level questionnaire collected gender, age, occupational role, personal and occupational COVID-19 exposure, general psychological discomfort (GHQ-12), post-traumatic stress symptoms (IES-R), and anxiety (GAD-7). Workers showing PsI (i.e., test scores above the cutoff in at least one among GHQ-12, IES-R, and GAD-7) have been further investigated by the second-level questionnaire (psycho-diagnostic) composed by PHQ-9, DES-II, and SCL-90 scales. If the second-level showed clinically relevant symptoms, then we offered individual specialist treatment (third level).ResultsThree hundred sixteen workers (32%) presented signs of PsI at the first-level screening questionnaire. Women, nurses, and subjects engaged in the COVID-19 area and with an infected family member showed significantly higher PsI risk. PsI prevalence was strongly associated with the pandemic trend in the region but sensibly decreased after January 2021, when almost all workers received the vaccination. A proportion of subjects with PsI presented clinically relevant symptoms (second-level screening) on PHQ-9 (35%), DES (20%), and SCL-90 (28%). These symptoms were associated neither to direct working experience with patients with COVID-19 nor to COVID-19 experience in the family and seemed not to be influenced by the pandemic waves or workers vaccination.ConclusionsThe evaluation of psychological wellbeing of all hospital workers, directly or indirectly exposed to pandemic consequences, constitutes a unique condition to detect individual, occupational, and non-occupational risk factors for PsI in situations of high stress and/or disasters, as well as variables associated with symptom chronicization.