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.

Despite the increasingly global nature of health care, much of the research about journal rankings and directions for future research in health care management is from a United States based viewpoint. There is a lack of information about influential journals and trends for health care management research from a global perspective. This exploratory study gathered the opinions of health care management researchers from 17 countries regarding which journals are considered most influential, popular research topics and areas needing more attention from the research community. An online survey was sent to individuals in high-income Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries who were identified through author relationships, academic institution websites, editorial boards of international journals, and academic and practitioner associations in the countries of interest. Results indicate that journal rankings vary substantially from prior published studies evaluating health care management journals and international ranking lists, and the list of influential journals includes a much more diverse array of publications. Respondents also indicated a diverse number of topics for current and future research, highlighting the global complexity of the field. The implications of this study are valuable to scholars evaluating outlets for disseminating research, and highlighting areas for collaborative research in health care management globally.

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.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between country-of-origin (COO) and brand positioning in the context of the high-involvement service of health care. This paper compares and analyzes different positioning strategies used in Europe, North America and the Middle East. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses content analysis of promotional materials for a sample of 168 health-care organizations located in 14 countries to identify brand positioning strategies used, such as foreign, local and global consumer culture positioning. A chi-square analysis and post hoc testing is used to examine how positioning strategies differ among regions. Findings The findings indicate that European and Middle Eastern health-care organizations most frequently use foreign consumer culture positioning, while North American institutions tend to use global consumer culture positioning. The findings indicate that health-care organizations in countries with a better reputation for care use different positioning strategies than in countries with a lesser reputation for quality care. Practical implications The findings are of value to international advertising and marketing professionals and hospitals seeking to attract patients globally in a competitive marketplace. Hospitals must consider their positioning relative to both domestic and international competitors and the COO of their target audience. Originality/value COO is important in high-involvement service industries because consumers lack the information needed to evaluate service quality. Consumers may rely on COO and brand positioning signals more heavily relative to goods or low-involvement services. However, little prior research exists examining COO effects and brand positioning for high involvement services and for health care specifically. This paper makes a unique contribution by filling this gap.

No abstract

No abstract

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.

No abstract