The Work-Related Quality of Life measure is one of the most succinct yet psychometrically valid and reliable Quality of Working Life scales in the literature. We propose that it can appropriately be used in healthcare organizations to assess quality of working life. Further research is required to refine the instrument and assess its applicability to other areas.

Numerous tools have been developed that attempt to measure work-related stress and working conditions, but few practical instruments in the literature have been found to have a reliable psychometric factor structure. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Management Standards (MS) Indicator Tool is increasingly used by organizations to monitor working conditions that can lead to stress. In Health and Safety Executive (2004), a factor analysis was conducted demonstrating the reliability of the scales. However, the authors acknowledged that direct reassessment of the same factor structure was impossible as the questionnaire was split into two separate modules for data collection. Furthermore, the tool is designed to enable comparisons between as well as within organizations to take place, yet reliability has only previously been tested at the individual level. The current study is the first to examine the factor structure of the HSE MS Indicator Tool using organizational-level data. Data collected from 39 UK organizations (N = 26,382) was used to perform a first-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the original 35-item seven-factor measurement scale. The results showed an acceptable fit to the data for the instrument. A second-order CFA was also performed to test if the Indicator Tool contains a higher order uni-dimensional measure of work-related stress. These findings also revealed an acceptable fit to the data, suggesting that it may be possible to derive a single measure of work-related stress. Normative data comprising tables of percentiles from the organizational data are provided to enable employers to compare their organizational averages against national benchmarks.

While academic jobs generally provide a good degree of flexibility, academics also tend to work extra hours which can then lead to a poorer work-life balance. In this study, we compare academic vs. non-academic staff and anticipate that academics will generally report a poorer Quality of Working Life, a broad conceptualization of the overall work experience of employees. Secondly, we investigate whether the negative relationships between being an academic and Quality of Working Life variables are made worse by working extra hours, and moderated by the perception of having a balanced work-life interface. Our sample consisted of 1474 academic and 1953 non-academic staff working for nine Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the United Kingdom (UK). Data were analyzed via structural equation modelling.Results showed that academics tend to report a poorer Quality of Working Life than non-academics within HEIs, and this is exacerbated by their higher reported number of extra hours worked per week. The work-life balance of employees was found to moderate the negative relationships between academics (vs. non-academics) in variables such as perceived working conditions and employee commitment. We additionally found curvilinear relationships where employees who worked up to 10 extra hours were more satisfied with their job and career and had more control at work than those who either did not work extra hours or worked for a higher number of extra hours. These results extend previous research and provide new insights on work-life balance among academics and non-academics, which in turn may be relevant for the wellbeing practices of HEIs and wider HE policy making.

Aim: This systematic review aimed to establish if cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can reduce the physical symptoms of chronic headache and migraines in adults. Methods: Evidence from searches of eight databases was systematically sought, appraised and synthesised. Screening of title and abstracts was conducted independently by two reviewers. Full papers were screened, data extracted and quality assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised narratively by intervention due to the heterogeneity of the studies. The inclusion criteria specified randomised controlled trials with CBT as an intervention in adults suffering from chronic headaches/ migraines not associated with an underlying pathology/medication overuse. CBT was judged on the basis of authors describing the intervention as CBT. The diagnosis of the condition had to be clinician verified. Studies had to include a comparator and employ headache/migraine-specific outcomes such as patientreported headache days. Results: Out of 1126 screened titles and abstracts and 20 assessed full papers, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria of the review. Some studies combined CBT with another intervention, as well as employing varying numbers of comparators. CBT was statistically significantly more effective in improving some headachesrelated outcomes in CBT comparisons with waiting lists (three studies), in combination with relaxation compared with relaxation only (three studies) or antidepressant medication (one study), with no statistically significant differences in three studies. Conclusions:The findings of this review were mixed, with some studies providing evidence in support of the suggestion that people experiencing headaches or migraines can benefit from CBT, and that CBT can reduce the physical symptoms of headache and migraines. However, methodology inadequacies in the evidence base make it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions or to make any recommendations. Keywords British Journal of Pain 9(4)Headaches are thought to occur regularly in around 46% and migraine in 11% of the population, making it one of the most common neurological problems presented to general practitioners (GPs) and neurologists in the United Kingdom. 1 A primary care-based study set in 18 general practices in the south Thames region of England (urban and rural areas) based on 141,100 patients (aged 18 to 75 years) interviewed people reporting problematic experiences of headache in order to establish healthcare use and the cost associated with the provision of services to people with headaches. Extrapolating to the UK population, the authors suggest the total annual cost of migraines and headaches in 2011 was around £4.8 billion (including lost employment), with around £956 million due to healthcare use. 2 The authors propose that these figures may be underestimations, as most headaches are self-managed 3 and so not reported to GPs. This is supported by other significant organisations 4,5 and demonstrates the magnitude of the problem of headache...

No abstract