Differences in risk and protective factors for workplace aggression between male and female clinical medical practitioners in Australia

Abstract

Objectives. The aim of the present study was to investigate differences in prevalence, as well as risk and protective factors, for exposure to workplace aggression between male and female clinicians in Australian medical practice settings.Methods. In a cross-sectional, self-report study in the third wave of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life survey (2010-11), 16 327 medical practitioners were sampled, with 9449 (57.9%) respondents working in clinical practice. Using backward stepwise elimination, parsimonious logistic regression models were developed for exposure to aggression from external (patients, patients' relatives or carers and others) and internal (co-workers) sources in the previous 12 months.Results. Overall, greater proportions of female than male clinicians experienced aggression from external (P < 0.001) and internal (P < 0.01) sources in the previous 12 months. However, when stratified by doctor type, greater proportions of male than female general practitioners (GPs) and GP registrars experienced external aggression (P < 0.05), whereas greater proportions of female than male specialists experienced external (P < 0.01) and internal (P < 0.01) aggression. In logistic regression models, differences were identified in relation to age for males and experience working in medicine for females with external and internal aggression; working in New South Wales (vs Victoria) and internal aggression for females; a poor medical support network and external aggression, and perceived unrealistic patient expectations with internal aggression for males; warning signs in reception and waiting areas with external aggression for males; and optimised patient waiting conditions with external and internal aggression for females.Conclusions. Differences in risk and protective factors for exposure to workplace aggression between male and female clinicians, including in relation to state and rural location, need to be considered in the development and implementation of efforts to prevent and minimise workplace aggression in medical practice settings.What is known about the topic? Workplace aggression is prevalent in clinical medical settings, but there are conflicting reports about sex-based differences in the extent of exposure, and little evidence on differences in risk and protective factors for exposure to workplace aggression. What does this paper add? Differences in workplace aggression exposure rates between male and female clinicians are highlighted, including when stratified by doctor type. New evidence is reported on differences and similarities in key personal, professional and work-related factors associated with exposure to external and internal aggression. What are the implications for practitioners? In developing strategies for the prevention and minimisation of workplace aggression, consideration must be given to differences between male and female clinicians, including with regard to personality, age and professional experience, as well as work locations, conditions and settin...

Workplace aggression experiences and responses of Victorian nurses, midwives and care personnel

“…Exposure rates in nursing have been consistently very high in Australia over a 35-year period (Hegney, Eley, Plank, Buikstra, & Parker, 2006;Holden, 1985;O'Connell et al, 2000;Shea et al, 2017), but are quite possibly increasing, particularly from co-workers. It must be acknowledged, however, that prevalence rates and impacts are known to vary across health professionals' personal and professional characteristics, and different workplaces and specialties (Guay, Goncalves, & Jarvis, 2014Hegney et al, 2006;Hills, 2017;Hills et al, 2012;Shea et al, 2017).…”

“…There is some evidence of broader organisational and government efforts to address the high levels of workplace aggression experience by health workers in Australia. A range of prevention and minimisation measures has been established in health workplaces, both private and public, but the available evidence suggests that even some of the most readily implemented have not been adopted, are not effectively implemented or do not offer the protections that might have been expected (Hills, 2017;Hills & Joyce, 2014;. In the State of Victoria, responding to the findings of the Violence in Healthcare Taskforce Report (Violence in Healthcare Taskforce, 2016), the State Government has recently announced a range of initiatives in an "Australian first policy to prevent violence in hospitals" (Hennessy, 2017).…”

“…Workplace aggression in health care is a major work health and safety, and public health concern. In addition to a range of psychological impacts, workplace aggression has also been associated with poor health, work-related illness and injury, work restrictions or modifications, role conflict and ambiguity, job dissatisfaction and absenteeism, as well as longer term impacts on workforce participation decisions (Camerino, Estryn-Behar, Conway, van Der Heijden, & Hasselhorn, 2008;Friis, Larsen, & Lasgaard, 2017;Fujishiro, Gee, & de Castro, 2011;Gerberich et al, 2004;Hills, 2016Hills, , 2017Hills & Joyce, 2014;Nachreiner, Gerberich, Ryan, & McGovern, 2007;O'Brien-Pallas, Wang, Hayes, & Laporte, 2009;Zhang et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2018). There is also a growing body of evidence on the negative impact of workplace aggression on the quality and safety of patient care (Arnetz & Arnetz, 2001;Houck & Colbert, 2016;Laschinger, 2014;O'Brien-Pallas et al, 2009).…”

Post-traumatic Reactions and Their Predictors among Workers Who Experienced Serious Violent Acts: Are There Sex Differences?

“…SVAs in the workplace consist of physical violence, robbery, armed robbery, sexual touching, sexual assault, and death threat (Guay et al, 2016). Studies on workplace exposure to SVAs have shown that men are commonly more likely to be victimized, but nuances exist concerning the sector within which they work and the type of acts sustained (Santana and Fisher, 2000;Guay et al, 2015;Hills, 2017;van Reemst and Fischer, 2016). According to a recent systematic review (Guay et al, 2015), men are more at risk in healthcare, in social work, in retail, and service industry settings, whereas women working in law enforcement and transportation professions were more often victimized than their male counterparts.…”

The Relationship between Patients’ Demands and Workplace Violence among Healthcare Workers: A Multilevel Look Focusing on the Moderating Role of Psychosocial Working Conditions

“…Psychosocial factors have traditionally been considered for their impact on workers' job stress and mental health [17], while less attention has been paid to the potential of certain psychosocial working conditions to be directly involved in the dynamic of third-party workplace violence, which may be-at least in part-a side effect of a poor psychosocial work environment [18,19]. Therefore, the present study was designed with the main aim of assessing the role of psychosocial working conditions in reports of workplace violence from patients and their family members, building on the idea that violence is frequently an escalated outcome of demands from patients and their family members, which at times may be excessive and unrealistic [20,21]. Specifically, a violent episode may develop from the inadequate management of patients' demands, which may be significantly impacted by poor psychosocial working conditions fueling job stress and reducing the effectiveness of healthcare workers' job performance.…”