The relationship between workplace characteristics and work ability in residential aged care: What is the role of work–life interaction?

Abstract

Aims To examine whether the work–life interface (through work–family conflict and overall work–life balance) moderates the relationship between work ability and workplace demands and resources. Design This study used a cross‐sectional survey design to collect data from 426 employees working in residential aged care. Methods A paper‐based questionnaire was distributed to all permanent and casual employees at eight aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia, between June ‐ September 2013. Moderation analyses were conducted using PROCESS v. 2.13 in SPSS v. 22. Results/Findings As expected, workplace demands and resources directly influenced workers’ work ability. In addition, moderate‐to‐high levels of work–family conflict and low‐to‐moderate levels of satisfaction with work–life balance combined interactively with particular workplace demands and resources (relationships with management, physical demands, and safety climate) to reduce work ability. Conclusions This study advances understanding of how work–life balance and work–life conflict can influence work ability levels and shows that addressing the work–life interface may be a legitimate means to improve work ability, potentially leading to continued workforce participation. Impact Staff retention in the residential aged care sector needs to be addressed. One possible means of achieving this is through improving work ability. This study expanded knowledge of how the work–life interface may influence work ability. The research demonstrated that relationships between work ability and particular workplace demands and resources were moderated by the work–life interface. This finding has implications for how human resources managers of residential aged care facilities may improve workforce retention—through facilitating employees to manage the work–life interface better.

Working From Home During COVID-19

“…For example, WFC has been found to both mediate and moderate the relationship between musculoskeletal pain and work-place characteristics. 35,36 Weale et al 37 reported that WFC moderated the relationship between workplace characteristics and work ability (the ability to work at one's best 38 ). Weale et al 39 found that WFC mediated the relationship between workplace characteristics (relationships with management, poor relationships with colleagues, and safety climate) and job satisfaction; however, these studies did not include people WFH, so it is unknown whether these findings apply in a WFH context, irrespective of whether WFH is undertaken on a recommended/mandatory basis or by negotiation.…”

Does work–family conflict play a role in the relationship between work‐related hazards and musculoskeletal pain?

“…Risk management strategies for MSD are still largely focused on management of physical hazards 38,39 and a shift to multifaceted interventions, taking into account all possible contributing factors, including psychosocial hazards and those arising from the work–life interface, is required to adequately manage MSDs 40,41 . Examining the relationship between health outcomes, WFC, and work‐related hazards may identify intervention points to improve health outcomes for individuals, potentially extending working life 42 …”

The relationship between voluntary employer change and work ability among older workers: investigating the honeymoon-hangover effect

“…Many working conditions can change due to a voluntary employer change, which may have a direct impact on work ability-and of course job satisfaction-such as leadership quality, work-privacy conflict, travel time to work, colleagues, work tasks, influence at work, working environment and work equipment (Grund 2009;Carless and Arnup 2011;Garthe and Hasselhorn 2020). Several studies confirmed the relationship between physical and psychological working conditions and work ability (Alavinia 2008;van den Berg et al 2008;Sanders et al 2011;Attarchi et al 2014;Weale et al 2019). It can also be assumed that only those employees change, who expect an improvement, which implies that changers to some degree may constitute a selective group.…”