Assessing Differences in Attitudes toward Occupational Safety and Health Measures for Infection Control between Office and Assembly Line Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Baseline Data from a Repeated Employee Survey.

In our study, we investigated possible differences across occupational groups regarding employees' perceived work-related risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, attitudes toward technical, organisational, and personal occupational safety and health (OSH) measures for infection control, and factors associated with this attitude. We analysed baseline data (10 August to 25 October 2020) from a repeated standardised online survey distributed at a worldwide leading global supplier of technology and services in Germany. 2144 employees (32.4% women; age (mean ± SD): 44 ± 11 years) who worked predominantly remotely (n = 358), at an on-site office (n = 1451), and assembly line/manufacturing (n = 335) were included. The work-related SARS-CoV-2 risk of infection differed between office employees working remotely and on-site (mean ± SD = 2.9 ± 1.5 vs. 3.2 ± 1.5; Mann-Whitney-U-Test: W = 283,346; p < 0.002; ε2 = 0.01) and between on-site office and assembly line/manufacturing employees (3.8 ± 1.7; W = 289,174; p < 0.001; ε2 = 0.02). Attitude scores toward technical OSH-measures differed between remote and on-site office (4.3 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.6; W = 216,787; p < 0.001; ε2 = 0.01), and between on-site office and assembly line/manufacturing employees (3.6 ± 0.9; W = 149,881; p < 0.001; ε2 = 0.07). Findings were similar for organisational and personal measures. Affective risk perception, COVID-19-specific resilience, and information about COVID-19-related risks were associated with the employees' attitudes. To promote positive attitudes, it seems to be important to consider occupational-group-specific context factors when implementing OSH-measures for infection control.

Leadership program with skills training for general practitioners was highly accepted without improving job satisfaction: the cluster randomized IMPROVEjob study.

Leadership has become an increasingly important issue in medicine as leadership skills, job satisfaction and patient outcomes correlate positively. Various leadership training and physician psychological well-being programmes have been developed internationally, yet no standard is established in primary care. The IMPROVEjob leadership program was developed to improve job satisfaction among German general practitioners and practice personnel. Its acceptance and effectiveness were evaluated. The IMPROVEjob intervention is a participatory, interdisciplinary and multimodal leadership intervention that targets leadership, workflows and communication in general practices using three elements: (1) two leadership workshops with skills training; (2) a toolbox with printed and online material, and (3) a 9-month implementation phase supported by facilitators. A cluster-randomised trial with a waiting-list control evaluated the effectiveness on the primary outcome job satisfaction assessed by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (range 0-100). A mixed-methods approach with questionnaires and participant interviews evaluated the acceptance of the intervention and factors influencing the implementation of intervention content. Statistical analyses respected the clustered data structure. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated intervention adjustments: online instead of on-site workshops, online material instead of facilitator practice visits. Overall, 52 of 60 practices completed the study, with altogether 70 practice leaders, 16 employed physicians, and 182 practice assistants. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, job satisfaction decreased between baseline and follow-up (not significantly) in the total study population and in both study arms, while the subgroup of practice leaders showed a non-significant increase. A mixed multilevel regression model showed no effect of the intervention on job satisfaction (b = - 0.36, p > 0.86), which was influenced significantly by a greater sense of community (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). The acceptance of the IMPROVEjob workshops was high, especially among practice leaders compared to assistants (1 = best to 5 = worst): skills training 1.78 vs. 2.46, discussions within the practice team 1.87 vs. 2.28, group discussions 1.96 vs. 2.21. The process evaluation revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic complicated change processes and delayed the implementation of intervention content in practice routines. The workshops within the participatory IMPROVEjob intervention were rated very positively but the multimodal intervention did not improve job satisfaction 9 months into the pandemic. Qualitative data showed an impairment of implementation processes by the unforeseeable COVID pandemic.Trial registration Registration number: DRKS00012677 on 16/10/2019.

Factors Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccination Status of Higher Education Students: Results of an Online Cross-Sectional Survey at Six Universities in Southwestern Germany.

This cross-sectional study explored factors associated with the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination acceptance among higher education students in southwestern Germany. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey at six state-approved higher education institutions (HEIs) between July and November 2021. In addition to descriptive analyses, univariate as well as multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were conducted. A total of 6556 higher education students aged 18 years and older participated in our survey; 91.4% of participating students had been vaccinated against COVID-19 at least once. The factors that significantly contributed to the explanation of higher education students' vaccination status in the multivariate analysis (area under curve-AUC = 0.94) were variables on the perception of the virus SARS-CoV-2 (affective risk perception: Adjusted odds ratio-aOR = 1.2; perception of the outbreak as a media-hype: aOR = 0.8), attitudes towards personal (aOR = 0.7) and study-related (aOR = 0.8) health and safety measures to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination (preservation of own health: aOR = 1.3; confidence in vaccine safety: aOR = 1.7; supporting higher education through vaccination: aOR = 1.2; own contribution to the containment of the pandemic: aOR = 1.7). The findings target assisting HEIs in returning to face-to-face teaching after previous semesters of online teaching.

Higher Work-Privacy Conflict and Lower Job Satisfaction in GP Leaders and Practice Assistants Working Full-Time Compared to Part-Time: Results of the IMPROVEjob Study.

BACKGROUND: Work-privacy conflict (WPC) has become an important issue for medical professionals. The cluster-randomized controlled IMPROVEjob study aimed at improving job satisfaction (primary outcome), with additional outcomes such as examining the work-privacy conflict in German general practice personnel. Using baseline data of this study, the relationship between work-privacy conflict and job satisfaction (JS) was analyzed. In addition, factors associated with higher WPC were identified. METHODS: At baseline, 366 participants (general practitioners (GPs) in leadership positions, employed general practitioners, and practice assistants) from 60 German practices completed a questionnaire addressing socio-demographic data and job characteristics. Standardized scales from the German version of the COPSOQ III requested data concerning job satisfaction and work-privacy conflict. Both scores range from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). Multilevel analysis accounted for the clustered data. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS and RStudio software, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Job satisfaction was 77.16 (mean value; SD = 14.30) among GPs in leadership positions (n = 84), 79.61 (SD = 12.85) in employed GPs (n = 28), and 72.58 (SD = 14.42) in practice assistants (n = 254). Mean values for the WPC-scale were higher for professionals with more responsibilities: GPs in leadership positions scored highest with 64.03 (SD = 29.96), followed by employed physicians (M = 45.54, SD =30.28), and practice assistants (M = 32.67, SD = 27.41). General practitioners and practice assistants working full-time reported significantly higher work-privacy conflict than those working part-time (p < 0.05). In a multilevel analysis, work-privacy conflict was significantly associated with job satisfaction (p < 0.001). A multiple regression analysis identified working hours, as well as and being a practice owner or an employed physician as factors significantly influencing WPC. DISCUSSION: WPC was high among general practice leaders and practice personnel working full-time. Future interventions to support practice personnel should focus on reducing WPC, as there is good evidence of its effects on job satisfaction.

Adjusting working conditions and evaluating the risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic in different workplace settings in Germany: a study protocol for an explorative modular mixed methods approach.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, many countries, affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, discuss how the 'lockdown-restrictions' could be lifted to restart the economy and public life after the first wave of the COVID-19 disease has subsided. This study protocol describes an approach designed to provide an in-depth understanding of how companies and their employees in Germany deal with their working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also interested in how and why the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 could vary across different professional activities, company sites and regions with different epidemiological activity or infection control measures in Germany. We expect the results of this study to contribute to the development of working conditions protecting the health of employees during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An explorative multimodal mixed methods approach will be applied. Module 1 comprises a document analysis of prevailing federal and regional laws and regulations at the respective location of the participating company. Module 2 includes qualitative interviews with key actors at different companies. Module 3 is a repeated standardised employee survey designed to capture potential changes in the participants' experiences and attitudes towards working conditions, occupational safety regulations/measures, and infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Module 4 comprises SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence testing. This is carried out by the medical service of the participating company sites as a voluntary offer for employees. Qualitative data will be analysed through document and content analysis. The complexity of the quantitative analysis depends on the response rates of modules 3 and 4. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The approval of the study design was received in June 2020 from the responsible local ethical committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen and University Hospital Tübingen (No. 423/2020BO). The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.