ObjectivesThis study developed and tested a research model that examined the effects of working conditions and individual resources on work–family conflict (WFC) using data collected from physicians working at German clinics.Material and methodsThis is a cross-sectional study of 727 physicians working in German hospitals. The work environment, WFC and individual resources were measured by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, the WFC Scale, the Brief Resilient Coping Scale and the Questionnaire for Self-efficacy, Optimism and Pessimism. Descriptive, correlation and linear regression analyses were applied.ResultsClinical doctors working in German hospitals perceived high levels of WFC (mean=76). Sociodemographic differences were found for age, marital status and presence of children with regard to WFC. No significant gender differences were found. WFCs were positively related to high workloads and quantitative job demands. Job resources (eg, influence at work, social support) and personal resources (eg, resilient coping behaviour and self-efficacy) were negatively associated with physicians’ WFCs. Interaction terms suggest that job and personal resources buffer the effects of job demands on WFC.ConclusionsIn this study, WFC was prevalent among German clinicians. Factors of work organisation as well as factors of interpersonal relations at work were identified as significant predictors for WFC. Our results give a strong indication that both individual and organisational factors are related to WFC. Results may play an important role in optimising clinical care. Practical implications for physicians’ career planning and recommendations for future research are discussed.
A complete absence of coercion on the decision to donate seems unrealistic because of the dynamics initiated by the life-threatening condition of the recipient. It is important that donors feel they are gaining something by donation to be sufficiently motivated and that their profit is of an emotional or moral nature (i.e., the donation being set in an emotionally meaningful context). A mature relationship with the recipient usually provides such a context. The role of the clinician as a part of LDLT dynamics has a decisive influence.
In view of the scarcity of organ resources available for transplantation, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is gaining growing importance in the treatment of chronically terminal liver diseases. In the period between December 1999 and October 2000, 47 potential living liver donors were evaluated and 24 right hepatic lobes and two left lateral segments were transplanted at the Virchow-Klinikum of the Charité Hospital in Berlin. The present study looks into biomedical and psychosocial parameters of 23 donors before and 6 months after LDLT. Our aims were to investigate the development of psychosocial parameters after donation and the relationship between psychosocial findings and post-operative complications. Most donors showed an improved quality of life (QoL) after LDLT when compared with pre-operative results. Twenty-six percent of donors show high values for 'tiredness', 'fatigue' and 'limb pain' following donation. The post-operative complications had no influence on the psychosocial outcome. In this pilot study the resection of the right hepatic lobe amounts to a safe operation for donors and holds promise of a good psychosocial outcome for most donors, irrespective of donation-related complications. The pronounced complaints appears to indicate psychological tension and distress in some donors following donation.
The hypothesis that the various factors involved in the multidimensional construct QOL receive different weightings was confirmed, making a simple summary score for the general QOL appear unjustifiable. In addition, all aspects that are commonly understood as parameters of QOL are influenced by external factors, such as coping behavior, based on individual personality characteristics.
In view of the scarcity of organ resources for transplantation, donation by living donors is assuming greater significance now that the technical-surgical problems involved have been solved. In the period between December 1999 and December 2000, 47 potential living liver donors were evaluated and a total of 27 hepatic lobes were transplanted at the Virchow-Klinikum of the Charité Hospital in Berlin. The close personal relationships between recipients and donors gives reason to anticipate high levels of psychosocial pressure during the pre-operative evaluation process; this process consists in part in looking into donor motivation, ambivalence and anxiety. The pre-operative psychometric evaluation of 40 potential living donors indicated that most of the potential donors see themselves as 'super-healthy' and tend to adapt to social expectations, while on the other hand those seven potential living donors not accepted for psychosocial reasons were marked by heightened values for anxious depression and pessimism. The results indicate in most cases a great willingness to donate and on the other hand a high level of obvious psychological pressure for a low number of potential donors. For the latter, both the clinical evaluation interview and the psychometric diagnostics used revealed clear-cut feelings of anxiety and ambivalence towards transplantation.
The study results reflect the positive effect of supportive working conditions and work engagement on the preservation of work ability, indicating their importance in promoting surgeons' work ability. Due to the elderly population and the continuing development of health care in Germany, the demand for surgeons increases. These circumstances give reasons for a strong need to preserve and restore surgeons' work ability. New strategies for training and improving the capacity and performance of surgeons are necessary.
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.