Web-based occupational stress prevention in German micro- and small-sized enterprises - process evaluation results of an implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Structural and behavioral interventions to manage work-related stress are effective in employees. Nonetheless, they have been implemented insufficiently, particularly in micro- and small-sized enterprises (MSE). Main barriers include a lack of knowledge and limited resources, which could potentially be overcome with simplified web-based alternatives for occupational stress prevention. However, there is a lack of implementation research about web-based prevention in realistic settings of MSE. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation process and success of an integrated web-based platform for occupational stress prevention ("System P") and to identify potential barriers for its uptake and use in MSE in Germany. METHODS: This study with a mixed-methods approach investigates eight process-related outcomes in a quantitative part I (adoption, reach, penetration, fidelity/dose, costs, acceptability) and a qualitative part II (acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility). Part I has a pre-post design with two measurements (6 months apart) with 98 individual participants and part II consists of 12 semi-structured interviews with managers and intercorporate stakeholders. RESULTS: Part I revealed shortcomings in the implementation process. Adoption/Reach: Despite extensive marketing efforts, less than 1% of the contacted MSE responded to the offer of System P. A total of 40 MSE registered, 24 of which, characterized by good psychosocial safety climate, adopted System P. Penetration: Within these 24 MSE, 15% of the employees used the system. Fidelity/Dose: 11 MSE started a psychosocial risk-assessment (PRA), and no MSE finished it. The stress-management training (SMT) was started by 25 users and completed by 8. COSTS: The use of System P was free of charge, but the time required to engage with was an indirect cost. Part II added insights on the perception of the web-based intervention: Acceptance of System P by users and stakeholders was good and it was assessed as appropriate for MSE. Results for feasibility were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Although System P was generally perceived as useful and appropriate, only a small number of contacted MSE implemented it as intended. Prior experience and sensitivity for occupational (stress) prevention were mentioned as key facilitators, while (perceived) indirect costs were a key barrier. Enabling MSE to independently manage stress prevention online did not result in successful implementation. Increasing external support could be a solution. ⁺ FULL PROJECT NAME: "PragmatiKK - Pragmatische Lösungen für die Implementation von Maßnahmen zur Stressprävention in Kleinst- und Kleinbetrieben" (= Pragmatic solutions for the implementation of stress prevention interventions in micro and small-sized enterprises). TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register of Clinical Studies (DRKS) DRKS00026154, date of registration 2021-09-16.

Psychosocial working conditions and mental health among medical assistants in Germany: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Medical assistants (MA) constitute one of the largest professions in outpatient health care in Germany. The psychosocial working conditions of health care staff are generally believed to be challenging and to thereby increase the risk of poor mental health. A review of MA's psychosocial working conditions and mental health is lacking, however. We aimed to systematically identify and summarize existing research on psychosocial working conditions and mental health of MA by addressing (1) Which methods, concepts, and instruments have been used to capture the psychosocial working conditions and mental health among MA in Germany? (2) What findings are available? and (3) What are the research gaps? METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, CCMed and Google Scholar. Using the Population Concept Context (PCC)-framework, we applied the following eligibility criteria: (a) Language: English or German, (b) publication between 2002-2022, (c) original study, (d) study population: mainly MA (i.e., ≥ 50% of the study population), (e) concept: psychosocial working conditions and/or mental health, and (f) context: Germany. Two reviewers extracted data independently, results were compared for accuracy and completeness. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-seven sources were identified. We included 30 publications (19 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and one mixed methods study). Quantitative studies consistently reported high job satisfaction among MA. Quantitative and mixed methods studies frequently reported aspects related to job control as favorable working conditions, and aspects related to job rewards as moderate to unfavorable. Qualitative studies reported low job control in specific work areas, high demands in terms of workload, time pressure and job intensity, and a desire for greater recognition. Social interactions seemed to be important resources for MA. Few studies (n = 8) captured mental health, these reported inconspicuous mean values but high prevalences of anxiety, burnout, depression, and stress among MA. Studies suggested poorer psychosocial working conditions and mental health among MA during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative studies tend to suggest more favorable psychosocial working conditions among MA than qualitative studies. We suggest mixed methods to reconcile this alleged inconsistency. Future research should examine discrepancies between job satisfaction and unfavorable working conditions and if psychosocial working conditions and mental health remain changed after the COVID-19 pandemic.

What helps hospital staff in times of crisis: qualitative results of a survey on psychosocial resources and stressors in German hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital workers faced a tremendous workload. The pandemic led to different and additional strain that negatively affected the well-being of employees. This study aims to explore psychosocial resources and strategies that were used by hospital staff. Methods: In the context of an intervention study, employees of three German hospitals were questioned in writing in summer and fall 2020. Five open-ended questions about the pandemic were asked to capture corresponding effects on daily work routine. Answers of 303 participants were evaluated using structuring qualitative content analysis. Results: Significant stressors and resources were identified in the areas of work content and task, social relations at work, organization of work, work environment and individual aspects. Stressors included, for example, emotional demands, conflicts, an increased workload, time and performance pressure. Important resources mentioned were, among others, the exchange with colleagues and mutual support. Sound information exchange, clear processes and guidelines and a positive work atmosphere were also important. In addition, the private environment and a positive mindset were perceived as helpful. Conclusion: This study contributes to a differentiated understanding of existing psychosocial resources of hospital staff in times of crisis. Identifying and strengthening these resources could reduce stress and improve well-being, making hospital staff better prepared for both normal operations and further crisis situations.