Objective The aim of this review was to evaluate research relating to the role of gender in the level of workplace stress. A further aim was to review literature relating to stressors of particular relevance to working women. These stressors included, multiple roles, lack of career progress and discrimination and stereotyping. Design Systematic review. Method Major databases were searched in order to identify studies investigating gender and workplace stress. A range of research designs were included and no restrictions were made on the basis of the occupations of the participants. Results Much of the research indicated that women reported higher levels of stress compared to men. However, several studies reported no difference between the genders. Furthermore, the evidence for the adverse effects of multiple roles, lack of career progress and discrimination and stereotyping was inconsistent. Conclusion The current review concluded that the evidence regarding the role of gender in workplace stress and stressors was inconsistent. Limitations of the research were highlighted and implications for practice were discussed.

The aim of this study was to explore older workers’ motivation for a full or extended working life. With particular focus on assistant nurses aged 55–64 years, working in the elderly care sector. Focus group interviews were conducted with five different groups of assistant nurses. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the interviews and five main themes were developed from the data: ‘Organisational issues’, ‘Health-related problems’, ‘Private issues’, ‘Meaningfulness and appreciation’ and ‘Social support’. Several of the main themes concerned problems with too high work demands of the assistant nurses. These findings suggest that it is important to improve the working conditions of assistant nurses in order to create a more sustainable working life. Increasing the number of staff and improving recovery opportunities and work–life balance could be important steps to improving the working conditions for this group. Finally, upgrading the competency and professionalism of assistant nurses could help to increase the motivation for a full or extended working life.

No abstract

Objective To examine three levels of need for recovery (NFR) after work in relation to effort from work demands, demand compensatory strategies, effort-moderating or-reversing resources, and health including health behaviors. A further purpose was to examine occupational characteristics determining NFR. Methods 5000 engineers, carpenters, nurses, and home care nurses were invited to participate. NFR k-means clusters were calculated from 1289 participants. The effect from three levels of NFR regarding demands, compensatory strategies, resources at work, health, and health behaviors was examined using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc analysis. Prevalence ratios (PRs) of suboptimal health for three levels of NFR were calculated using Poisson regression. Linear stepwise multiple regression predictors explaining NFR were examined also occupation wise. Results NFR centroids at 5.8/33, 13.1/33, and 21.0/33 points were identified. ANOVA showed corresponding effects from NFR levels on work demands and compensatory strategies. The inversed proportion concerned levels of resources at work. Only the low NFR cluster negated regular health effects. The other two cluster groups also repeatedly worked while ill and presented PRs concerning health effects from 1.9 to 3.9 when compared to the low NFR group. Making good quality work, recovery opportunities, and thinking of work when off work were the most important predictors of NFR among 1289 participants with also occupation-wise interpretable profiles. Conclusions Three levels of NFR meant corresponding levels of work demands, work-demand compensatory strategies, and unfavorable health behaviors. An inversed proportion of resources related to the same levels of NFR. Low NFR meant no regular health effects which could guide limit values regarding salutary NFR. Important predictors of NFR were resources making a good quality work, recovery opportunities, and reversely effort from rumination when off work. Occupation-wise predictors could guide interventions.