| Literature DB >> 34831875 |
Felix Alexander Neumann1, Elisabeth Rohwer1,2, Natascha Mojtahedzadeh2, Nataliya Makarova1, Albert Nienhaus3,4, Volker Harth2, Matthias Augustin5, Stefanie Mache2, Birgit-Christiane Zyriax1.
Abstract
Working conditions in the care sector, especially under the increased strain during COVID-19, make it difficult for outpatient caregivers to adhere to health-promoting behaviours. Research on workplace health promotion (WHP) and COVID-19 support measures in outpatient care services is limited. The aim of this pilot study was to characterise the current situation of WHP and COVID-19 support measures in outpatient care services and to explore how to offer WHP support measures targeted for a specific group. A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with outpatient caregivers (N = 171) in northern Germany. The results showed that 60.2% of the study participants were offered WHP support measures, with significantly higher work engagement when WHP support measures were available (Z = 4279.50, p < 0.01) and that 77.2% received specific support from their employer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although spending a break in a break room was significantly associated with longer breaks as compared with being in a car (Z = 39.10, padj. = 0.01), a break room was neither available in all outpatient care services, nor did it appear to be feasible. Overall, WHP in outpatient care services is insufficiently covered. In order to be able to offer WHP support measures that are targeted to outpatient caregivers, cooperation among local care services, feasibility, and digital measures should be examined.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; ambulatory care; break room; caregivers; digitisation; health and safety; occupational health; outpatient care; support measures; workplace health promotion
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34831875 PMCID: PMC8620567 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182212119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic characteristics.
|
| ||
| Male | 57 (33.3) | |
| Female | 112 (65.5) | |
| Diverse | 2 (1.2) | |
|
| ||
| 18–29 | 18 (10.5) | |
| 30–39 | 55 (32.2) | |
| 40–49 | 40 (23.4) | |
| 50–59 | 44 (25.7) | |
| ≥60 | 14 (8.2) | |
|
| ||
| Both parents born in Germany | 132 (77.2) | |
| One parent at least born abroad | 39 (22.8) | |
|
| ||
| General secondary school | 18 (10.5) | |
| Intermediate secondary school | 87 (50.9) | |
| Specialised grammar school | 21 (12.3) | |
| Grammar school | 45 (26.3) | |
|
| ||
| Supervisor | 62 (35.4) | |
| Shift work | 89 (52.0) | |
Figure 1Evaluation of offer, desire, use, and benefit of twelve health promotion measures.
Figure 2Aspects of work engagement among outpatient caregivers. The responses (N = 171) of the three items were correlated (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), and Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.82) indicated a good internal consistency.
Length of breaks spent at the different break locations as compared with in a break room.
| Break Locations Compared to the Break Room |
| M | SD |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Break room | 37 | 27.03 | 11.93 | - | - | - |
| Multiple responses | 56 | 26.43 | 12.31 | 2.82 | 0.77 | 1.00 |
| Outdoors (e.g., park) | 27 | 24.39 | 8.21 | 10.66 | 0.36 | 1.00 |
| Other (e.g., café, supermarket) | 28 | 20.00 | 12.63 | 25.87 |
| 0.26 |
| Car | 23 | 16.74 | 12.93 | 39.10 |
|
|
Note: N = 171; a, Kruskal–Wallis Tests; b, p values adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests; results directed according to the hypothesis; p < 0.05 in bold.
Figure 3Potential approaches for workplace health promotion.