Next Article in Journal
Nutritional Status Indicators as Predictors of Postoperative Complications in the Elderly with Gastrointestinal Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Using Unified Modeling Language to Analyze Business Processes in the Delivery of Child Health Services
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 20
10.3390/ijerph192013458
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Quality of Work Organization on Distress and Absenteeism among Healthcare Workers

by
Nicola Magnavita
1,2,*,
Carlo Chiorri
3,
Leila Karimi
4,5 and
Maria Karanika-Murray
6
1
Postgraduate School of Occupational Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Woman, Child & Public Health Sciences, Fondazione A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Genova, 16126 Genova, Italy
4
School of Applied Health, Psychology Department, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
5
School of Medicine and Healthcare Management, Caucasus University, Tbilisi 0141, Georgia
6
Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, 50 Shakespeare Street, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(20), 13458; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013458
Submission received: 12 September 2022 / Revised: 3 October 2022 / Accepted: 15 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The quality of work organization may be responsible not only for reduced productivity but also for an increased risk of mental and physical disorders. This study was aimed at testing this hypothesis. Workers of a local health unit in Italy were asked to fill out the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire (WOAQ) during their periodic medical examinations in the second half of 2018. On the same occasion, they also completed the Demand/Control/Support (DCS) measure of job strain, the Effort/Reward Imbalance (ERI) questionnaire, and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) to assess psychological health. A total of 345 workers (85.8%) completed the survey. Linear regression analysis showed that the quality of work organization was inversely proportional to psychological health problems (p < 0.001). Occupational stress, measured both by job strain and ERI, was a moderating factor in this relationship. The relationship between the WOAQ and psychological health, moderated by job strain or ERI, remained highly significant even after adjustment for sex, age, social support, and overcommitment. Regression models explained over 40% of the shared variance of the association between quality of work organization and psychological health. The quality of work organization significantly predicted the risk of sickness absence for musculoskeletal disorders (OR = 0.984, CI95% 0.972–0.996) and for other health problems (OR = 0.977, CI95% 0.967–0.988). A continuous improvement of work organization must consider not only the clients’ or production needs but also the well-being of workers.

1. Introduction

The quality and organization of the work in public health and healthcare organizations is fundamental to maximizing the effectiveness of health services, especially under restricted resources. In Italy, the universal health coverage provided by the national health system has allowed significant improvements in public health, even with a decrease of resources [1]. However, since each region is responsible for its own health services planning and delivery, wide disparities in performance exist between regional health services [2]. Local healthcare organizations are therefore challenged to deliver high-quality care with a gradual decrease in public health expenditure. Other countries worldwide are in a similar situation.
A great variety of concepts and tools have been used to solve labor problems in healthcare. Industrial improvement approaches such as benchmarking [3] or lean management are increasingly being adopted [4,5]. However, healthcare environments can be complex, limiting the ability to obtain optimal layout solutions [6]. Less-than-satisfactory outcomes have often been achieved through implementation of industrial and business methods in healthcare [7], and this has been attributed to the special characteristics of healthcare, which cannot be based solely on economic criteria [8]. As things stand, healthcare workers (HCWs) often witness conflicting views by national, regional, and local managers on the most appropriate policies and strategies to be implemented in order to increase efficiency.
Moreover, healthcare facilities are organized in a way that sees modern management based on the care complexity of patients and the intensity of the care that they need [9]. This contrasts with the traditional system, which is based on operating units that trace the different specialties and on districts that follow the territorial distribution of services. In such conflicting situations within the same company, individual employees may find themselves working in very different organizational settings. The organizational climate has long been recognized as one of the risk factors for workers’ health [10,11,12]. Comprehensive literature reviews showed that work environment factors highly correlate to employees’ health and well-being [13] and to quality of life and quality of working life among healthcare workers [14]. There is strong evidence that low organizational justice, high job strain, high effort/reward imbalance, and low social support may increase the risk for musculoskeletal disorders [15], and that poor organization of work may be responsible for the emergence of mental and physical health problems [16], particularly in hospitals, due to the concurrence of workload, psychosocial, and ergonomic factors [17]. On the contrary, improved quality and organization of work that allows implementing multi-domain interventions (i.e., including healthcare provision, service coordination, or work accommodation components) can help to increase job retention and promote the return to work of people with mental and musculoskeletal health problems [18,19]. There is strong evidence that quality of work (the work environment and way that work is organized) impacts psychological health [20], reducing psychological distress and increasing well-being in workers [21].
The quality of work organization can be evaluated through two different approaches. The first consists of measuring the organization’s impact on workers’ psychosocial outcomes. For example, organizational justice [22,23] is significantly associated with the mental well-being of workers and with absence due to lower-back pain [24]. The second approach is to directly ask workers how they experience specific work organization factors. This approach gave rise to the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire [25], which has been applied in public sector workers [26] and in the healthcare sector [27,28,29] in European and non-European countries.
There is strong evidence, from meta-analytic research, of the effects of the psychosocial work environment on mental health [30]. Those studies supported expectations about similar effects among the quality of work organization and psychological health outcomes, and the role of perceived stress in this relationship. Indeed, the psychosocial work environment, in interaction with genetic and epigenetic factors [31], contributes to psychological outcomes, such as stress-related disorders [32], and behavioral outcomes, such as sickness absenteeism [33]. This is especially pronounced in emotional labor (i.e., all service jobs that cannot be described only by the physical component but must consider the interaction of users and their emotions), which is common in healthcare [34]. The literature has strongly supported the moderating role of emotion in this relationship [35]. The performance of emotional labor can have both negative and positive consequences for workers, depending on the different forms of emotion management involved [35]. Workers’ perceptions of stress can be measured in two complementary dimensions: job strain [36] and effort/reward imbalance [37]. In previous studies, the demand/control and effort/reward imbalance models independently predicted poor self-reported health status; however, combining both models was a better predictor of self-reported health status and any chronic condition than either model alone [38,39]. Systematic reviews demonstrated that low organizational justice may be involved in developing adverse health and occupational outcomes in HCWs [40]. Prospective studies indicated with moderate evidence that low organizational justice is associated with a greater risk of developing common mental health problems [41]. Unfavorable work conditions are associated with burnout in nursing [42]. When examining these relationships, it is important to consider overcommitment and social support because these factors are also strong independent predictors of psychological health [43].
In this study, we aimed to verify the assumption that the organization of work is associated with workers’ mental health status. Furthermore, we expected that perceptions of occupational stress would moderate this relationship. Finally, we studied the relationship between work organization and sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders or other diseases. We tested the following hypotheses:
H1: 
Quality of work is positively associated with psychological health;
H2: 
The relationship between quality of work and psychological health is moderated by job strain;
H3: 
The relationship between quality of work and psychological health is moderated by effort/reward imbalance;
H4: 
Quality of work is negatively associated with sickness absenteeism (for both musculoskeletal and other health problems).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

The study was cross-sectional and descriptive. We followed the STROBE guidelines [44].

2.2. Population

European directives state that workers exposed to occupational risk will be assessed by an occupational physician who will verify their suitability for work. All workers of the Local Health Unit Roma 4, Civitavecchia, in the Latium region of Italy, who were called for the periodic visit in the second half of 2018 were asked to complete a questionnaire containing measures of their work experience and psychological health as well as demographic and job-related information (sex, age, and type of job). Age was measured in years. Job type was measured as three professional categories: physician, nurse, and support staff. The workers invited to participate were all those who: (1) had been classified as “exposed to occupational risk” by the employer; (2) had undergone a preventive medical examination at least a year earlier; (3) had to undergo a new examination for the expiration of the judgment of suitability at risk. Participation in the survey was voluntary.

2.3. Questionnaire

The Italian version [45] of the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire (WOAQ) [25] was used to evaluate the overall quality of the work environment and the way that work was organized. The questionnaire comprises 28 items, grouped into five categories: (1) quality of relationships with management, (2) reward and recognition, (3) workload issues, (4) quality of relationships with colleagues, and (5) quality of physical environment. Using their knowledge and experience, participants were asked to evaluate each aspect of their work in terms of how problematic (or good) it had been over the last six months using a five-point Likert-type scale (5 = very good to 1 = major problem). The WOAQ uses situational rather than psychological reasoning; it asks, “How good or poor do you and your colleagues think this aspect of work design (or management) is?” rather than “To what extent are you upset or distressed by this aspect of work design (or management)?”. The work organization assessment index gives a score from 28 to 140. Higher scores indicate higher quality of work organization. Previous studies showed that global measure of WOAQ could be used as a single factor to assess the overall quality of work organization [27,28]. In this study, the reliability of the WOAQ was very high for the whole population (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.949) as well as each subgroup (Physician group Cronbach’s alpha = 0.949, Nurse group Cronbach’s alpha = 0.951, Support staff Cronbach’s alpha = 0.948).
The participants were also asked to fill out a questionnaire on job strain: the Italian version [46] of the Demand/Control/Support (DCS) questionnaire based on the Karasek model [36,47,48]. The DCS model postulates that job stress emerges from an interplay of job demands (e.g., quantitative workload, degree of difficulty, time available to perform tasks, role conflict, etc.) and job control (or decision latitude, e.g., the ability to make decisions about how to complete job tasks). Social support at work (i.e., the need to relate to others and to seek out help in accomplishing difficult tasks) was later included in the model when its moderating effect on job strain [49,50] and psychological health [51,52] was established. The DCS questionnaire comprises 17 questions to be rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale and provides scores of the demand (5 items, score from 5 to 20) and control (6 questions, score from 6 to 24) scales, whose weighted ratio, called “job strain” (JS), expresses perceived stress. The support scale measures social support with 6 questions (score from 6 to 24). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for demand was 0.737 (acceptable), for control 0.612 (acceptable), and for support 0.862 (very good).
The participants also were requested to fill in the Effort/Reward Imbalance (ERI) questionnaire by Siegrist [37,46,53,54]. The Siegrist’s ERI model takes into account the reward rather than the control structure of work, suggesting that psychological issues such as distress are due to a high degree of effort that is not adequately rewarded (e.g., in the form of pay, recognition, status, or career opportunities). This model is completed by a third, intrinsic component: overcommitment, which is defined as a personal set of attitudes, behaviors, and emotions reflecting excessive motivational striving combined with a strong desire for approval [55]. The ERI questionnaire comprises 23 questions to be rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale and measures the subjective effort made to work (effort, 6 questions, score from 6 to 24) and the material or intangible rewards received for the work completed (reward, 11 questions, score 11 to 44). The weighted ratio between effort and reward indicated the imbalance (ERI) that is the extrinsic component of stress. In addition, the model also included an intrinsic component of work stress: the “overcommitment” (OC) coping pattern, which has an independent role in explaining the psychological health of workers in many studies [56]. The overcommitment scale is composed of 6 questions, to be rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale with scores ranging from 6 to 24. In this research, the Cronbach’s alpha of the subscales was 0.852 for effort, 0.855 for reward, and 0.861 for overcommitment (very good).
Psychological health was measured using the Italian version [57] of Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) [58]. The questionnaire presents 12 questions answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale. The overall score values ranged from 12 to 48, with a higher score indicating a higher level of mental discomfort. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.899, suggesting an optimal internal consistency of the scale in this sample.
The participants were also asked to indicate with a binary response (yes/no) whether in the year prior to the visit, they had abstained from work due to musculoskeletal problems, and if they had abstained for other diseases.

2.4. Ethics

All the workers signed consent to the anonymous processing of their personal data and publication of the results from the analyses, which included their consent related to the present study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [59] and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy (protocol code 1226, 24 November 2016).

2.5. Statistics

The distribution of scores was analyzed by measuring central tendency (mean, median, mode) and dispersion (standard deviation). We did not need to normalize the data before the statistical analyzes because, as reported by Lumley et al. [60], the assumption of normality is only required for small samples due to the central limit theorem. With sample sizes exceeding 30, as was the case here, violations of the normality assumptions are not problematic, and they become less and less problematic, even when extreme, as the sample size increases.
Comparisons between the different professional categories, sexes, and age groups of workers were carried out using one-way ANOVAs, followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc tests. The relations between these variables were examined using Pearson correlation.
Once the presence of a significant correlation between the variables was found, we specified a linear regression model that included interactions in order to test moderation effects. We hypothesized that the work organization could act as a predictor of psychological health (as measured by the GHQ12), with stress as a moderating factor in this relationship. Social support, overcommitment, age, and sex were considered confounding factors.
Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between WOAQ or stress variables and the number of days of absence due to musculoskeletal disorders or other diseases in the year preceding the visit. The estimated effect was presented in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Each of the variables was initially posited as a predictor in univariate models in which the absence of back pain or for other musculoskeletal problems was the response variable. Subsequently, multivariate logistic regression models, adjusted for gender and age, were constructed.
The statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) integrated by PROCESS version 4.1 [61].

3. Results

Overall, 345 workers of the 402 who had been invited agreed to participate in the survey (85.8% participation rate). The main reason for non-participation was the lack of time to complete the questionnaire. The sample was mainly composed of females (230, 66.7%) and nurses (201, 58.3%) among the professional categories. The average age was 43.44 years (s.d. 8.71). The characteristics of the sample corresponded to those of the employees of the Italian National Health Service [62]. See Table 1 for the participant demographics.

3.1. Intergroup Comparison

The comparison between professional categories (Table 2) indicated that the evaluation of work organization does not depend on the type of professional role. Physicians reported significantly greater control than other professional categories and greater effort than support staff, but the levels of stress and psychological well-being did not differ among the different categories. In comparing the different age groups, no differences were found in the evaluation of work organization, stress, or psychological health. More females reported that they were overcommitted and had a lower level of psychological health compared to males.

3.2. Relationships between Work Organization, Stress, and Psychological Health

Work organization and the variables that measure occupational stress and psychological health were significantly correlated (Table 3). The quality of work organization was inversely related to stress and low psychological health. Social support was inversely related to low psychological health while overcommitment was positively correlated with low psychological health.
Moderation analysis revealed that both the direct and indirect (via job strain, Table 4, or via ERI, Table 5) associations between work organization quality and psychological health were statistically significant after adjustment for gender, age, social support, and overcommitment. The conditional effects of the independent variable WOAQ at values of the moderator job strain were significant (p ≤ 0.05) at levels −0.3008, 0.0001, and 0.3008 (−SD, M, +SD). Similarly, the conditional effects of the independent variable WOAQ at values of the moderator ERI were significant (p ≤ 0.05) at levels −0.3827, 0.0001, and 0.3827 (−SD, M, +SD). Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the relationship between work organization quality and psychological health moderated by job strain and by effort/reward imbalance.

3.3. Relationship between Work Organization and Sickness Absence

During the year preceding the visit, 99 workers (29.2%) had been on sick leave for back pain or other musculoskeletal disorders and 150 workers (44.2%) had been on sickness absence for other causes.
Logistic regression was used to examine how work organization was related to absenteeism due to musculoskeletal disorders. In univariate analyses, work organization was significantly and positively associated with the occurrence of sickness absence separately for musculoskeletal disorders (Table 6) and other causes (Table 7). After addition of the control variables in the prediction model, the relationship between WOAQ and musculoskeletal disorders remained highly significant. Overcommitment was significantly associated with absenteeism for musculoskeletal disorders, but the relationship became non-significant when the demographic variables were included (Table 6). Stress (measured as an imbalance between effort and rewards) was positively correlated with sickness absence for other-than-musculoskeletal disorders, and social support was negatively associated with these problems. Both these relationships were stable after the addition of the demographic variables (Table 7).

4. Discussion

This study was conducted on a group of healthcare workers in a local health unit in Italy. The findings showed that quality of work organization was significantly associated, in a protective way, with psychological health. Specifically, occupational stress significantly moderated the relationship between work organization and psychological health. Work organization was also negatively associated with sickness absence, both from musculoskeletal problems and other causes. The hypotheses that motivated this study have been confirmed.
These results are in line with the literature [25,26,27,28,29] that the WOAQ appears to be a great instrument for assessing risk factors associated with employee health and health-related behavior. Improvements in work organization were associated with a higher level of organizational justice perceived by workers [64]. Perceived job characteristics and organizational justice could improve nursing care quality [65]. As mentioned earlier, evidence showed that low organizational justice is linked to adverse health and occupational outcomes in HCWs [40] and a greater risk of developing common mental health problems [41], whilst negatively experienced work conditions are linked with burnout in healthcare workers [42]. In reverse, however, effective work organization could help to improve workers’ mental health, reduce burnout and increase work engagement through meritocratic person-centered work culture, minimization of bureaucracy, and opportunities for employee professional development and self-care [66].
The WOAQ has been shown, here and elsewhere, to be a valid and functional measure of the organization of work. The WOAQ asks workers to express the opinion that they and their colleagues share of the organization of work. Objectivity, in this sense, was supported by the lack of significant differences in judgment between the various professional categories, age groups, and sexes. On the contrary, when workers were questioned about their perception of organizational justice, that is, the level of correctness of procedures, distribution of tasks and rewards, information flows, and relationships in the workplace, significant differences were observed between the various subgroups of HCWs, with doctors who complained of poor distributive justice, women who reported poor interpersonal justice, and elderly workers who reported less informative justice than the other subgroups of the healthcare population [24]. This difference in the distribution of responses indicates that the evaluation of work organization through a questionnaire such as the WOAQ is more objective than that based on the perception of organizational justice, in which the personal component of judgment has predominant importance. Another substantial difference between the assessment conducted with the WOAQ and that obtainable through the organizational justice questionnaires is that the former considers both ergonomic factors and human factors while the latter examines only human factors.
In the literature, the organization of healthcare work has also been studied with qualitative methods that demonstrate how staff is able to correctly describe problems and provide useful elements to management to improve a given situation [67]. However, these methods appear particularly suitable for small samples and have limited reproducibility. The use of a standardized questionnaire is recommended when considering large populations or when you want to check the effectiveness of the organization’s improvements over time. The WOAQ appears to be a valid and reliable tool for asking workers to evaluate the organization of their workplace.
Healthcare workplaces are complex and involve many critical elements. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent in healthcare [68]. Other widespread hazards are shift work and violence. Good organizational climate, with increased workplace cohesion and involvement and decreased work pressure, may mitigate the negative health outcomes of shift work [69] and of workplace violence [70]. Social support is a known mediator in the relationship between organizational justice and health [71] and proved to reduce disability from all causes, such as depression and musculoskeletal diseases, in public sector employees [72]. Our findings confirmed the protective effect of social support and indicate that ERI may, conversely, increase the risk. In this regard, the Finnish Public Sector Study has shown that the association of low organizational justice and ERI determines a doubled risk of disability pension for musculoskeletal or depressive disorders, and that the highest risk of disability can be observed among those with work stressor combinations strain+ERI or strain+ERI+injustice, rather than those with single stressors [73]. As for overcommitment, which in our sample showed a weak association with musculoskeletal sickness before adjustment for age and sex, the results are in agreement with the literature review that expressed inconclusive evidence of the role of overcommitment and of its interaction with effort/reward imbalance in musculoskeletal disorders of healthcare workers [74].
The two stress models we used have different meanings and, consequently, different relationships with the outcomes. In the vast complex of care activities, each of the two stress models captures some specific aspects: the DCS more linked to physical loads and the ERI to intangible contents. In our sample, which brought together the many activities of a local healthcare unit, the variables deriving from the two models had modest associations with sickness absence. This result is in agreement with what was found in the literature. A German study showed that organizational justice was a significant independent predictor of musculoskeletal pain only among white-collar workers, whereas job strain had additive predictive utility exclusively among blue-collar workers; in reverse, ERI influenced pain-symptom reporting in both occupational groups [75]. In a heterogeneous population of such a local healthcare unit, the assessment of work organization quality with the WOAQ is a more effective predictor of sickness absences than measurement of occupational stress.
The identification of problems in the organization of work is the basis for the development of workplace health interventions and participatory ergonomics programs. These programs have been applied in different contexts, with encouraging results [76,77]. It is, however, evident that programs can only work with the concrete support of company management [78]. In the hospital, they were used not only to solve problems related to the manual handling of loads [79,80] or incorrect postures [81,82] but also to improve the organization of shifts [83], prevent workplace violence [84,85], control alcohol and drug use [86], and deal with relationship problems or multiple organizational issues [87]. Participatory simulation activities, with subsequent transferring and integrating of the simulation outcomes into the design of workplaces, have been proposed for improving hospital design projects [88]. In the company where this study was carried out, the experience of the participatory ergonomics groups (gruppi di ergonomia partecipativa/GEP©) was initiated [89]. Through this method, the staff of the various operating units were called to analyze the organization of work, to identify the critical points, and to propose and elaborate upon improvements by favoring the characteristics of cheapness, feasibility, and acceptability of the measures. Indeed, the role of participatory groups that can lead the implementation of interventions has been shown to be essential for the success of such programs [90]. The proposals shared by the workers were sent to company management, which evaluated their adoption. This method received an award in 2008 from the Italian Society of Ergonomics and was included among the best practices in the European campaigns “Lighten the load” in 2007 and “Safer and healthier work at any age—occupational safety and health in the context of an aging workforce” in 2016/17. We are confident that the results of this study can stimulate the development of participatory initiatives for the improvement of the organization in other healthcare companies.
The findings of this research have to be appreciated in light of its limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study prevented us from inferring causality. However, it seems plausible to believe that work organization is a determinant of distress and to believe that reverse causality is unlikely. Second, the survey was carried out in a single health unit, and this requires the utmost caution in extrapolating the results to other work situations. Finally, the sample size was smaller in physicians and support staff compared to nursing. However, it is sensible to observe that there are no great differences between the various health units, and we can therefore believe that by applying the same method in other situations, comparable results can be obtained.

5. Conclusions

The quality of work organization, as measured by the WOAQ, has a significant impact on psychological health and sickness absences, supporting the importance and the need to continuously improve the organization of work to improve workers’ well-being, especially in the demanding healthcare sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.M.; methodology, N.M.; validation, C.C., L.K. and M.K.-M.; formal analysis, N.M. and C.C.; investigation, N.M.; resources, N.M.; data curation, N.M.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M.; writing—review and editing, C.C., L.K. and M.K.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (protocol code 1226, 24 November 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are freely available on the Zenodo repository: https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.7070452.svg accessed on 12 September 2022.

Acknowledgments

We thank the workers who answered the questionnaire and the health surveillance staff who helped collect the answers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Monasta, L.; Abbafati, C.; Logroscino, G.; Remuzzi, G.; Perico, N.; Bikbov, B.; Tamburlini, G.; Beghi, E.; Traini, E.; GBD 2017 Italy Collaborators; et al. Italy’s health performance, 1990–2017: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Public Health 2019, 4, e645–e657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Odone, A.; Azzopardi-Muscat, N. Health and the effect of universal health coverage in Italy. Lancet Public Health 2019, 4, e597–e598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ettorchi-Tardy, A.; Levif, M.; Michel, M.L.A.P. Benchmarking: A method for continuous quality improvement in health. Healthc. Policy 2012, 7, e101–e119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Call, R. ‘Lean’ approach gives greater efficiency. Health Estate 2014, 68, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rotter, T.; Plishka, C.; Lawal, A.; Harrison, L.; Sari, N.; Goodridge, D.; Flynn, R.; Chan, J.; Fiander, M.; Poksinska, B.; et al. What Is Lean Management in Health Care? Development of an Operational Definition for a Cochrane Systematic Review. Eval. Health Prof. 2019, 42, 366–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Benitez, G.B.; Da Silveira, G.J.C.; Fogliatto, F.S. Layout Planning in Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review. HERD 2019, 12, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmed, E.S.; Ahmad, M.N.; Othman, S.H. Business process improvement methods in healthcare: A comparative study. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 2019, 32, 887–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cozijnsen, L.; Levi, M.; Verkerk, M.J. Why industrial methods do not work in healthcare: An analytical approach. Intern. Med. J. 2020, 50, 250–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moridzadeh, R.S.; Sanaiha, Y.; Madrigal, J.; Antonios, J.; Benharash, P.; Baril, D.T. Nationwide comparison of the medical complexity of patients by surgical specialty. J. Vasc. Surg. 2021, 73, 683–688.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gillies, D.A.; Franklin, M.; Child, D.A. Relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction of nursing personnel. Nurs. Adm. Q. 1990, 14, 19–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, C.C.; You, C.S.; Tsai, M.T. A multidimensional analysis of ethical climate, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Nurs. Ethics 2012, 19, 513–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Marufu, T.C.; Collins, A.; Vargas, L.; Gillespie, L.; Almghairbi, D. Factors influencing retention among hospital nurses: Systematic review. Br. J. Nurs. 2021, 30, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pieper, C.; Schröer, S.; Eilerts, A.L. Evidence of Workplace Interventions-A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. de Lira, C.R.N.; Akutsu, R.C.; Costa, P.R.F.; Leite, L.O.; da Silva, K.B.B.; Botelho, R.B.A.; Raposo, A.; Han, H.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Araya-Castillo, L.; et al. Occupational Risks in Hospitals, Quality of Life, and Quality of Work Life: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Taibi, Y.; Metzler, Y.A.; Bellingrath, S.; Müller, A. A systematic overview on the risk effects of psychosocial work characteristics on musculoskeletal disorders, absenteeism, and workplace accidents. Appl. Ergon. 2021, 95, 103434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Evanoff, B.A.; Rohlman, D.S.; Strickland, J.R.; Dale, A.M. Influence of work organization and work environment on missed work, productivity, and use of pain medications among construction apprentices. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2020, 63, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dong, H.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, G.; Shao, T.; Xu, Y. Prevalence and associated factors of musculoskeletal disorders among Chinese healthcare professionals working in tertiary hospitals: A cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lancman, S.; Barros, J.O.; Jardim, T.A.; Brunoro, C.M.; Sznelwar, L.I.; da Silva, T.N.R. Organisational and relational factors that influence return to work and job retention: The contribution of activity ergonomics. Work 2021, 70, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cullen, K.L.; Irvin, E.; Collie, A.; Clay, F.; Gensby, U.; Jennings, P.A.; Hogg-Johnson, S.; Kristman, V.; Laberge, M.; McKenzie, D.; et al. Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2018, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lejeune, J.; Chevalier, S.; Fouquereau, E.; Chenevert, D.; Coillot, H.; Binet, A.; Gillet, N.; Mokounkolo, R.; Michon, J.; Dupont, S.; et al. Relationships Between Managerial and Organizational Practices, Psychological Health at Work, and Quality of Care in Pediatric Oncology. JCO Oncol. Pract. 2020, 16, e1112–e1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Keyes, C.L.M. Complete mental health: An agenda for the 21st century. In Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived; Keyes, C.L.M., Haidt, J., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 293–312. [Google Scholar]
  22. Elovainio, M.; Heponiemi, T.; Sinervo, T.; Magnavita, N. Organizational justice and health; review of evidence. G. Ital. Med. Del. Lav. Ergon. 2010, 32, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  23. Virtanen, M.; Elovainio, M. Justice at the workplace: A review. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 2018, 27, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Magnavita, N.; Chiorri, C.; Acquadro Maran, D.; Garbarino, S.; Di Prinzio, R.R.; Gasbarri, M.; Matera, C.; Cerrina, A.; Gabriele, M.; Labella, M. Organizational Justice and Health: A Survey in Hospital Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Griffiths, A.; Cox, T.; Karanika, M.; Khan, S.; Tomás, J.M. Work design and management in the manufacturing sector: Development and validation of the Work Organisation Assessment Questionnaire. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 63, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Wynne-Jones, G.; Varnava, A.; Buck, R.; Karanika-Murray, M.; Griffiths, A.; Phillips, C.; Cox, T.; Kahn, S.; Main, C.J. Examination of the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire in public sector workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 51, 586–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karimi, L.; Meyer, D. Validity and model-based reliability of the Work Organisation Assessment Questionnaire among nurses. Nurs. Outlook 2015, 63, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karimi, L.; Karanika-Murray, M.; Meyer, D. Cross-Validation of the Work Organization Assessment Questionnaire Across Genders: A Study in the Australian Health Care Sector. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Karimi, L.; Oakman, J. The Work Organisation Assessment Questionnaire: Validation for use with community nurses and paramedics. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2020, 18, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stansfeld, S.; Candy, B. Psychosocial work environment and mental health--a meta-analytic review. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2006, 32, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cannizzaro, E.; Ramaci, T.; Cirrincione, L.; Plescia, F. Work-Related Stress, Physio-Pathological Mechanisms, and the Influence of Environmental Genetic Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Nieuwenhuijsen, K.; Bruinvels, D.; Frings-Dresen, M. Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup. Med. 2010, 60, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Verhaeghe, R.; Vlerick, P.; Gemmel, P.; Van Maele, G.; De Backer, G. Impact of recurrent changes in the work environment on nurses’ psychological well-being and sickness absence. J. Adv. Nurs. 2006, 56, 646–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zapf, D. Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Hum. Res. Man Rev. 2002, 12, 237–268. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pugliesi, K. The Consequences of Emotional Labor: Effects on Work Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Well-Being. Motiv. Emot. 1999, 23, 125–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Karasek, R.A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Admin. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Siegrist, J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1996, 1, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ostry, A.S.; Kelly, S.; Demers, P.A.; Mustard, C.; Hertzman, C. A comparison between the effort-reward imbalance and demand control models. BMC Public Health 2003, 3, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Lee, S.J.; Lee, J.H.; Gillen, M.; Krause, N. Job stress and work-related musculoskeletal symptoms among intensive care unit nurses: A comparison between job demand-control and effort-reward imbalance models. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2014, 57, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Basu, S.; Qayyum, H.; Mason, S. Occupational stress in the ED: A systematic literature review. Emerg. Med. J. 2017, 34, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Harvey, S.B.; Modini, M.; Joyce, S.; Milligan-Saville, J.S.; Tan, L.; Mykletun, A.; Bryant, R.A.; Christensen, H.; Mitchell, P.B. Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 74, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dall’Ora, C.; Ball, J.; Reinius, M.; Griffiths, P. Burnout in nursing: A theoretical review. Hum. Resour. Health 2020, 18, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Aronsson, G.; Theorell, T.; Grape, T.; Hammarström, A.; Hogstedt, C.; Marteinsdottir, I.; Skoog, I.; Träskman-Bendz, L.; Hall, C. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and burnout symptoms. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. STROBE Checklists. Available online: https://www.strobe-statement.org/checklists/ (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  45. Magnavita, N.; Mammi, F.; Roccia, K.; Vincenti, F. WOA: A questionnaire for the evaluation of work organization. Translation and validation of the Italian version. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2007, 29 (Suppl. 3), 663–665. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Magnavita, N. Two tools for health surveillance of job stress: The Karasek Job Content Questionnaire and the Siegrist Effort Reward Imbalance Questionnaire. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2007, 29, 667–670. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Karasek, R.; Choi, B.; Ostergren, P.O.; Ferrario, M.; Smet, P.D. Testing two methods to create comparable scale scores between the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) and JCQ-like questionnaires in the European JACE Study. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2007, 14, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Theorell, T.; Perski, A.; Åkerstedt, T.; Sigala, F.; Ahlberg-Hultén, G.; Svensson, J.; Eneroth, P. Changes in job strain in relation to changes in physiological state: A longitudinal study. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1988, 14, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Johnson, J.V.; Hall, E.M. Job Strain, Work Place Social Support, and Cardiovascular Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Random Sample of the Swedish Working Population. Am. J. Public Health 1988, 78, 1336–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Johnson, J.V.; Hall, E.M.; Theorell, T. Combined Effects of Job Strain and Social Isolation on Cardiovascular Disease Morbidity and Mortality in a Random Sample of the Swedish Male Working Population. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1989, 15, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Thoits, P.A. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2011, 52, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Labrague, L.J. Psychological resilience, coping behaviours and social support among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review of quantitative studies. J. Nurs. Manag. 2021, 29, 1893–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Magnavita, N.; Garbarino, S.; Siegrist, J. The use of parsimonious questionnaires in occupational health surveillance. Psychometric properties of the short Italian version of the Effort/Reward Imbalance questionnaire. TSWJ Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 372852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Siegrist, J.; Wege, N.; Puhlhofer, F.; Wahrendorf, M. A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: Effortreward imbalance. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2009, 82, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. du Prel, J.B.; Runeson-Broberg, R.; Westerholm, P.; Alfredsson, L.; Fahlén, G.; Knutsson, A.; Nordin, M.; Peter, R. Work overcommitment: Is it a trait or a state? Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2018, 91, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Siegrist, J.; Li, J. Associations of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Components of Work Stress with Health: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Effort-Reward Imbalance Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Piccinelli, M.; Bisoffi, G.; Bon, M.G.; Cunico, L.; Tansella, M. Validity and test-retest reliability of the Italian version of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire in general practice: A comparison between three scoring methods. Compr. Psychiatry 1993, 34, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Goldberg, P. The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  59. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001, 79, 373–374. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lumley, T.; Diehr, P.; Emerson, S.; Chen, L. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Ann. Rev. Public Health 2002, 23, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. PROCESS Vers. 4.1 © 2012–2022 by Andrew F. Hayes. Available online: https://uedufy.com/data-analysis/spss/ (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  62. Ministry of Health. Staff of the National Health Service 2020. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/temi/p2_6.jsp?id=5237&area=statisticheSSN&menu=personaleSSN (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  63. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  64. Arakelian, E.; Paulsson, S.; Molin, F.; Svartengren, M. How Human Resources Index, Relational Justice, and Perceived Productivity Change after Reorganization at a Hospital in Sweden That Uses a Structured Support Model for Systematic Work Environment Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dong, X.; Lu, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J.; Li, B.; Huang, X.; Wan, Q.; Dong, S.; Shang, S. The effects of job characteristics, organizational justice and work engagement on nursing care quality in China: A mediated effects analysis. J. Nurs. Manag. 2020, 28, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rollins, A.L.; Eliacin, J.; Russ-Jara, A.L.; Monroe-Devita, M.; Wasmuth, S.; Flanagan, M.E.; Morse, G.A.; Leiter, M.; Salyers, M.P. Organizational conditions that influence work engagement and burnout: A qualitative study of mental health workers. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 2021, 44, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sein Myint, N.N.; Kunaviktikul, W.; Akkadechanunt, T.; Wichaikhum, O.A.; Turale, S. Nurses’ Qualitative Descriptions of the Organizational Climate of Hospitals. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2021, 53, 490–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Hulshof, C.T.; Pega, F.; Neupane, S.; van der Molen, H.F.; Colosio, C.; Daams, J.G.; Descatha, A.; Kc, P.; Kuijer, P.P.; Mandic-Rajcevic, S.; et al. The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. von Treuer, K.; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M.; Little, G. The impact of shift work and organizational work climate on health outcomes in nurses. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Pien, L.C.; Cheng, Y.; Cheng, W.J. Psychosocial safety climate, workplace violence and self-rated health: A multi-level study among hospital nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 2019, 27, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Eib, C.; Bernhard-Oettel, C.; Magnusson Hanson, L.L.; Leineweber, C. Organizational justice and health: Studying mental preoccupation with work and social support as mediators for lagged and reversed relationships. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2018, 23, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Juvani, A.; Oksanen, T.; Virtanen, M.; Elovainio, M.; Salo, P.; Pentti, J.; Kivimäki, M.; Vahtera, J. Organizational justice and disability pension from all-causes, depression and musculoskeletal diseases: A Finnish cohort study of public sector employees. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2016, 42, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Juvani, A.; Oksanen, T.; Virtanen, M.; Salo, P.; Pentti, J.; Kivimäki, M.; Vahtera, J. Clustering of job strain, effort-reward imbalance, and organizational injustice and the risk of work disability: A cohort study. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2018, 44, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Koch, P.; Schablon, A.; Latza, U.; Nienhaus, A. Musculoskeletal pain and effort-reward imbalance—A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Herr, R.M.; Bosch, J.A.; Loerbroks, A.; van Vianen, A.E.; Jarczok, M.N.; Fischer, J.E.; Schmidt, B. Three job stress models and their relationship with musculoskeletal pain in blue- and white-collar workers. J. Psychosom. Res. 2015, 79, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Burgess-Limerick, R. Participatory ergonomics: Evidence and implementation lessons. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 68, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wåhlin, C.; Stigmar, K.; Nilsing Strid, E. A systematic review of work interventions to promote safe patient handling and movement in the healthcare sector. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Dale, A.M.; Jaegers, L.; Welch, L.; Gardner, B.T.; Buchholz, B.; Weaver, N.; Evanoff, B.A. Evaluation of a participatory ergonomics intervention in small commercial construction firms. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2016, 59, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Jakobsen, M.D.; Aust, B.; Kines, P.; Madeleine, P.; Andersen, L.L. Participatory organizational intervention for improved use of assistive devices in patient transfer: A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2019, 45, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Magnavita, N.; Castorina, S.; Ciavarella, M.; Mammi, F.; Roccia, K.; Saffioti, C. Participatory approach to the in-hospital management of musculoskeletal disorders. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2007, 29, 561–563. [Google Scholar]
  81. Lin, S.; Tsai, C.C.; Liu, X.; Wu, Z.; Zeng, X. Effectiveness of participatory ergonomic interventions on musculoskeletal disorders and work ability among young dental professionals: A cluster-randomized controlled trail. J. Occup. Health 2022, 64, e12330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Stevens, M.L.; Boyle, E.; Hartvigsen, J.; Mansell, G.; Søgaard, K.; Jørgensen, M.B.; Holtermann, A.; Rasmussen, C.D.N. Mechanisms for reducing low back pain: A mediation analysis of a multifaceted intervention in workers in elderly care. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2019, 92, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Karhula, K.; Turunen, J.; Hakola, T.; Ojajärvi, A.; Puttonen, S.; Ropponen, A.; Kivimäki, M.; Härmä, M. The effects of using participatory working time scheduling software on working hour characteristics and well-being: A quasi-experimental study of irregular shift work. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2020, 112, 103696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Magnavita, N. Experience of prevention activities in local health units. Assaults and musculoskeletal disorders. Med. Lav. 2009, 100 (Suppl. 1), 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  85. Magnavita, N. Violence prevention in a small-scale psychiatric unit. Program planning and evaluation. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2011, 17, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Magnavita, N.; Magnavita, G.; Bergamaschi, A. Definition of participatory policy on alcohol and drug in two health care companies. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2010, 4 (Suppl. 2), 300–301. [Google Scholar]
  87. Magnavita, N. Medical Surveillance, Continuous Health Promotion and a Participatory Intervention in a Small Company. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Andersen, S.N.; Broberg, O. Transfer of ergonomics knowledge from participatory simulation events into hospital design projects. Work 2021, 68, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Bevilacqua, L.; Del Piano, A.; De Matteis, B.; Luciani, E.; Magnavita, L.; Mammi, F.; Presto, M.; Pupp, N.; Roccia, K.; Magnavita, N. The participatory approach to injury prevention appeared to be a useful tool of safety education and ergonomic improvement. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2007, 29, 560–561. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  90. Saksvik, P.Ø.; Christensen, M.; Tone Innstrand, S.; Vedlog, H.; Indergård, Ø.; Alnes Veldog, H.; Karanika-Murray, M. A six-year effect evaluation of an occupational health intervention—Considering contextual challenges. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 10, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 13458 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram of the job strain model. Note: ***: p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Diagram of the job strain model. Note: ***: p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05.
Ijerph 19 13458 g001
Ijerph 19 13458 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagram of the ERI model. Note: ***: p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Diagram of the ERI model. Note: ***: p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05.
Ijerph 19 13458 g002
Ijerph 19 13458 g003 550
Figure 3. Simple slopes plot of the job strain model.
Figure 3. Simple slopes plot of the job strain model.
Ijerph 19 13458 g003
Ijerph 19 13458 g004 550
Figure 4. Simple slopes plot for the ERI model.
Figure 4. Simple slopes plot for the ERI model.
Ijerph 19 13458 g004
Ijerph 19 13458 g005 550
Figure 5. Johnson–Neyman Plot of the relationship between work organization quality and psychological health, moderated by job strain.
Figure 5. Johnson–Neyman Plot of the relationship between work organization quality and psychological health, moderated by job strain.
Ijerph 19 13458 g005
Ijerph 19 13458 g006 550
Figure 6. Johnson–Neyman Plot for of the relationship between work organization quality and psychological health, moderated by effort/reward imbalance.
Figure 6. Johnson–Neyman Plot for of the relationship between work organization quality and psychological health, moderated by effort/reward imbalance.
Ijerph 19 13458 g006
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Sexn%
Male 11533.3
Female23066.7
Categoryn%
Physician6819.7
Nurse20158.3
Support staff7622.0
Table
Table 2. Distribution of work organization assessment (WOAQ score, mean ± standard deviation), occupational stress (DCS and ERI) and psychological health (GHQ12) by occupational group, gender, and age group.
Table 2. Distribution of work organization assessment (WOAQ score, mean ± standard deviation), occupational stress (DCS and ERI) and psychological health (GHQ12) by occupational group, gender, and age group.
1-Physician
(n = 68)		2-Nurse
(n = 201)		3-Support Staff
(n = 76)		p Value *
Work Organization83.7 ± 21.683.6 ± 20.681.6 ± 21.70.769
Demand13.5 ± 3.0913.2 ± 3.0213.6 ± 3.220.518
Control17.8 ± 3.2316.6 ± 2.7716.3 ± 3.360.006
1 vs. 2:0.015
1 vs. 3:0.009
Support19.8 ± 3.8619.9 ± 3.2919.3 ± 3.970.430
Effort15.7 ± 5.6715.0 ± 5.0513.4 ± 4.350.014
1 vs. 3:0.015
Reward44.1 ± 9.2942.6 ± 7.5943.0 ± 9.530.440
Overcommitment11.6 ± 5.4111.8 ± 5.1411.1 ± 4.520.527
Psychological Health23.2 ± 5.2223.9 ± 6.1422.1 ± 5.170.071
Younger (<41 years)
(n = 133)		Middle (41–50 years)
(n = 126)		Older (>50)
(n = 86)		p Value *
Work Organization83.7 ± 19.8584.3 ± 21.8380.7 ± 21.630.450
Demand13.5 ± 3.2212.9 ± 2.8013.6 ± 3.200.138
Control16.6 ± 3.1116.7 ± 2.8416.8 ± 3.210.612
Support19.5 ± 3.7320.2 ± 3.3019.4 ± 3.650.226
Effort14.9 ± 5.4014.1 ± 4.3815.5 ± 5.580.153
Reward42.8 ± 8.1343.0 ± 8.7543.3 ± 8.350.936
Overcommitment11.5 ± 5.0411.8 ± 5.1611.5 ± 5.000.909
Psychological Health22.9 ± 5.7523.6 ± 5.8323.8 ± 5.840.447
Male
(n = 115)		Female
(n = 230)		 p Value **
Work Organization86.2 ± 22.5381.7 ± 20.12 0.061
Demand13.2 ± 3.0213.4 ± 3.11 0.562
Control17.1 ± 3.3416.6 ± 2.86 0.153
Support19.6 ± 3.8819.8 ± 3.40 0.685
Effort14.1 ± 4.8515.1 ± 5.18 0.095
Reward44.0 ± 8.9942.5 ± 8.05 0.111
Overcommitment10.8 ± 4.9212.0 ± 5.09 0.029
Psychological Health22.0 ± 4.3224.1 ± 6.30 0.002
Note: (*) One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test (**) Student’s t-test.
Table
Table 3. Correlations between work organization quality, job strain, effort/reward imbalance, support, overcommitment, and psychological health. Values in the lower triangle are zero-order correlations; values in the upper triangle are partial correlations after controlling for gender and age.
Table 3. Correlations between work organization quality, job strain, effort/reward imbalance, support, overcommitment, and psychological health. Values in the lower triangle are zero-order correlations; values in the upper triangle are partial correlations after controlling for gender and age.
123456
1. Work Organization1−0.557 ***0.546 ***−0.563 ***−0.436 ***−0.421 ***
2. Job Strain−0.565 ***1−0.493 ***0.579 ***0.370 ***0.245 ***
3. Support0.551 ***−0.496 ***1−0.510 ***−0.286 ***−0.165 **
4. ERI−0.577 ***0.570 ***−0.525 ***10.570 ***0.421 ***
5. Overcommitment−0.459 ***0.377 ***−0.297 ***0.584 ***10.553
6. Psychological health−0.436 ***0.245 ***−0.160 **0.423 ***0.560 ***1
Note: ***: p < 0.001; **: p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Adjusted direct and indirect associations of work organization with psychological health (measured by GHQ12) moderated via job strain. Moderation analysis.
Table 4. Adjusted direct and indirect associations of work organization with psychological health (measured by GHQ12) moderated via job strain. Moderation analysis.
MeasureUnstandardized
Coefficients		Standard
Error		tp ValueStandardized
Coefficients		η2
WOAQ–0.081 (–0.113, –0.049)0.016–4.973<0.001−0.290 (−0.405, −0.175)0.240
Job Strain–0.064 (–2.179, 2.052)1.075–0.0590.953−0.003 (−0.113, 0.106)0.000
Interaction
WOAQ × Job strain		0.104 (0.036, 0.172)0.0353.0090.0030.136 (0.047, 0.225)0.027
Sex (Female)1.143 (0.054, 2.233)0.5542.0650.0400.093 (0.004, 0.181)0.012
Age0.067 (0.009, 0.125)0.0302.2550.0250.100 (0.013, 0.187)0.014
Support0.163 (–0.010, 0.335)0.0881.8570.0640.099 (−0.006, 0.204)0.015
Overcommitment0.537 (0.426, 0.648)0.0579.512<0.0010.463 (0.367, 0.559)0.225
R20.403
Note: Adjusted for age, sex, support and overcommitment; η2 values can be interpreted as negligible when η2 < 0.01, as small when 0.01 ≤ η2 < 0.06, as moderate when 0.06 ≤ η2 < 0.14, and large when η2 ≥ 0.14 [63].
Table
Table 5. Adjusted direct and indirect associations of work organization with psychological health (measured by GHQ12) moderated via effort/reward imbalance. Moderated linear regression analysis.
Table 5. Adjusted direct and indirect associations of work organization with psychological health (measured by GHQ12) moderated via effort/reward imbalance. Moderated linear regression analysis.
MeasureUnstandardized
Coefficients		Standard
Error		tp ValueStandardized
Coefficients		η2
WOAQ−0.069 (−0.100, −0.038)0.016–4.338<0.001−0.247 (−0.359, −0.135)0.241
ERI3.609 (1.449, 5.768)1.0983.2880.0010.237 (0.095, 0.380)0.073
Interaction
WOAQ × ERI		0.077 (0.028, 0.127)0.0253.1020.0020.169 (0.062, 0.276)0.029
Sex (Female)1.231 (0.148, 2.315)0.5512.2360.0260.100 (0.012, 0.188)0.012
Age0.064 (0.006, 0.122)0.0292.1790.0300.096 (0.009, 0.182)0.015
Support0.273 (0.100, 0.447)0.0883.0970.0020.166 (0.061, 0.272)0.042
Overcommitment0.459 (0.337, 0.581)0.0627.391<0.0010.396 (0.290, 0.501)0.163
R20.409
Note: Adjusted for age, sex, support, and overcommitment; η2 values can be interpreted as negligible when η2 < 0.01, as small when 0.01 ≤ η2 < 0.06, as moderate when 0.06 ≤ η2 < 0.14, and as large when η2 ≥ 0.14 [63].
Table
Table 6. Relationship between work organization, occupational stress, and the risk of having taken sickness absence for musculoskeletal disorders.
Table 6. Relationship between work organization, occupational stress, and the risk of having taken sickness absence for musculoskeletal disorders.
VariableModel I (Unadjusted)
OR (95% CI) 		p ValueModel II (Adjusted)
OR (95%CI)		p ValueNagelkerke R2
Work Organization0.98 (0.97, 0.99)0.0030.98 (0.97, 0.99)0.0090.120
Job Strain1.72 (0.79, 3.71)0.1691.82 (0.81, 4.11)0.1490.102
Social Support0.96 (0.90, 1.03)0.2460.96 (0.89, 1.02)0.1980.100
ERI1.63 (0.91, 2.93)0.1031.61 (0.87, 2.97)0.1270.102
Overcommitment1.05 (1.00, 1.10)0.0481.94 (0.99, 1.09)0.0870.105
Note: Model II was adjusted for age, sex, and job type.
Table
Table 7. Relationship between work organization, occupational stress, and the risk of having taken sickness absence for disorders other than musculoskeletal problems.
Table 7. Relationship between work organization, occupational stress, and the risk of having taken sickness absence for disorders other than musculoskeletal problems.
VariableModel I (Unadjusted)
OR (95% CI) 		p ValueModel II (Adjusted)
OR (95%CI)		p ValueNagelkerke R2
Work Organization0.98 (0.97, 0.99)<0.0010.98 (0.97, 0.99)<0.0010.074
Job Strain1.50 (0.73, 3.08)0.0961.51 (0.73, 3.11)0.2690.012
Social Support0.89 (0.84, 0.95)0.0010.89 (0.84, 0.95)0.0010.057
ERI2.00 (1.10, 3.63)0.0232.01 (1.10, 3.67)0.0230.028
Overcommitment1.02 (0.97, 1,06)0.4551.01 (0.97, 1.06)0.5210.008
Note: Model II was adjusted for age, sex, and job type.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Magnavita, N.; Chiorri, C.; Karimi, L.; Karanika-Murray, M. The Impact of Quality of Work Organization on Distress and Absenteeism among Healthcare Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13458. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013458

AMA Style

Magnavita N, Chiorri C, Karimi L, Karanika-Murray M. The Impact of Quality of Work Organization on Distress and Absenteeism among Healthcare Workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(20):13458. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013458

Chicago/Turabian Style

Magnavita, Nicola, Carlo Chiorri, Leila Karimi, and Maria Karanika-Murray. 2022. "The Impact of Quality of Work Organization on Distress and Absenteeism among Healthcare Workers" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 20: 13458. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013458

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop