Job Innovation for Direct Caregivers in the Care of Persons with Mental Retardation

Abstract

Professionals in different branches of the health care sector increasingly advocate a more flexible, individually-tailored type of care. To fit in with this trend, the Job Innovation Model was developed in The Netherlands. This model involves the systematic introduction of a system of personal caregiving. The purpose of the present study, using a pre-test-post-test quasi-experimental design, was to evaluate the effects of the implementation of the Job Innovation Model on the work and work perception of direct caregivers in the care of persons with mental retardation. Caregivers in the experimental group were found to have adopted the principles of the Job Innovation Model to a greater extent than their colleagues in the control group, and as a result, the experimental group started to work more methodically and perceived greater clarity in their work. In addition, a trend was observed towards greater job satisfaction among caregivers as a result of the introduction of the new model. No changes were found concerning burnout.

The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation. 2. A systematic review of task restructuring interventions

“…study job autonomy (control) and work demands were also unchanged 36. In the other study,34 only clarity (control) and satisfaction with management (support) were higher in the intervention group (Boumans Questionnaire). There were few health effects: in the Boumans and Landerweerd study(33) and the Berkhout et al study,36 reported health complaints (assessed by the Dutch VOEG scale33 and the Dirkin Questionnaire36) decreased slightly; while emotional exhaustion (Maslach Burnout Inventory) did not change significantly in either the Boumans and Berg34 or the Melchor35 studies.…”

“…Those interventions that did achieve alterations in levels of control tended to report significant changes in self-reported mental and physical health:34 40–48 52 in line with predictions, decreased levels of control almost invariably resulted in adverse health outcomes40 44 – 48 and, albeit to a lesser extent, increased levels of control resulted in improved health outcomes 31 42 43. In all but one study,49 interventions that increased support, whilst demands were increased and control decreased, still reported adverse health consequences 44 – 47.…”

“…Some interventions failed to bring about a measurable change in the psychosocial work environment33 36 41 whilst others made the environment worse 34 44 – 49. The majority of the interventions that we reviewed were introduced for economic or managerial reasons rather than as attempts to apply the demand–control–support model to the workplace to improve employee health.…”