Energizing Workplace Dynamics: Exploring the Nexus of Relational Energy, Humor, and PsyCap for Enhanced Engagement and Performance.

This study delves into the dynamics of relational energy (RE) within an organizational context, examining some of its antecedents and decedents. Specifically, it investigates the influence of psychological capital (PsyCap) and humor on RE, and, subsequently, the latter's impact on job performance (JB) mediated by job engagement (JE). A research model based on structural equation modeling carried out with 481 employees in private service industries demonstrates several key relationships. It reveals that both PsyCap and affiliative humor positively affect RE, while aggressive humor exerts a negative influence. Furthermore, RE shows a positive association with JE and JP, with JE serving as a mediator. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to present an integrated model encompassing this exact combination of influencers and consequences of RE, as well as the first to be investigated within the Western Balkans cultural context. Therefore, it represents a novel approach. Additionally, the research addresses crucial questions regarding the existence and strategic significance of RE within organizational interactions. The findings offer valuable insights for organizations seeking to enhance employee engagement, performance, and wellbeing-even during health crises such as COVID-19-by fostering RE. This study advances the understanding of RE in organizational settings and provides a foundation for future research in this domain.

Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the odds of caesarean section (CS) for uninsured women in the USA and understand the underlying mechanisms as well as consequences of lower use. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL from the first year of records to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation of ORs of CS of uninsured as compared with insured women. OUTCOMES: The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of deliveries by CS of uninsured women as compared with privately or publicly insured women. The prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of deliveries by CS of uninsured women as compared with insured women. RESULTS: 12 articles describing 16 separate studies involving more than 8.8 million women were included in this study. We found: 0.70 times lower odds of CS in uninsured as compared with privately insured women (95% CI 0.63 to 0.78), with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.01); and 0.92 times lower odds for CS in uninsured as compared with publicly insured women (95% CI 0.80 to 1.07), with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.02). We found 0.70 times lower odds in uninsured as compared with privately and publicly insured women (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: CSs are less likely to be performed in uninsured women as compared with insured women. While the higher rates for CS among privately insured women can be explained with financial incentives associated with private insurance, the lower odds among uninsured women draw attention at barriers to access for delivery care. In many regions, the rates for uninsured women are above, close or below the benchmarks for appropriate CS rates and could imply both, underuse and overuse.

Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives associated with private insurance may encourage healthcare providers to perform more caesarean sections. We therefore sought to determine the association of private insurance and odds of caesarean section. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the first year of records through August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation of OR of caesarean section of privately insured as compared with publicly insured women. OUTCOMES: The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of births delivered by caesarean section of women covered with private insurance as compared with women covered with public insurance. The prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of births delivered by caesarean section of women covered with private insurance as compared with women covered with public insurance. RESULTS: Eighteen articles describing 21 separate studies in 12.9 million women were included in this study. In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, the adjusted odds of delivery by caesarean section was 1.13 higher among privately insured women as compared with women with public insurance coverage (95% CI 1.07 to 1.18) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.006). The meta-analysis of crude estimates from 12 studies revealed a somewhat more pronounced association (pooled OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.44) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Caesarean sections are more likely to be performed in privately insured women as compared with women using public health insurance coverage. Although this effect is small on average and variable in its magnitude, it is present in all analyses we performed.