| Literature DB >> 36091555 |
Anhua Yang1, Xue Zhou1, Muhammad Tayyab Sohail1, Muhammad Rizwanullah1, Bo Dai2.
Abstract
The work cognition of public employees lays importance on tackling an escalating health crisis situation. At the micro-level and macro-level, different factors contribute to different degrees of public employees' work cognition. However, there are limited studies examining the work cognition of public employees and its influencing factors, particularly in situations such as a public health crisis. Our research takes China's response to COVID-19 as an example. The data have been taken from six Chinese provinces, Hunan, Hubei, Jiangsu, Shanxi, Henan, and Shandong, through a total of 738 questionnaires and telephonic interviews. Furthermore, this study used a logistic multiple regression model to analyze the factors that influenced the public employees' work cognition when working under a public health crisis. The results of our study showed that at a micro-level, the educational background, attitudes, and actions (initiative, responsibility, administrative capacity, and timeliness of feedback), and their level of concern with work influenced the work cognition of the public employees. At a macro-level, we found that it was the anti-epidemic measures that most influenced public employees' work cognition. Our findings provide important policy implications for emergency preparedness and handling of major emergencies, and have important reference value for the management of public employees and the improvement of national governance capabilities under similar major challenges in the future.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; influencing factors; public employees; public health crisis; work cognition
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36091555 PMCID: PMC9455152 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.938402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Survey sample.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 391 | 52.98 |
| Female | 347 | 47.02 | |
| Educational background | Junior high school and below | 16 | 2.17 |
| Junior college | 108 | 14.63 | |
| Senior high school | 36 | 4.88 | |
| Undergraduate | 422 | 57.18 | |
| Postgraduate and above | 156 | 21.14 | |
| Post and rank | Junior clerk | 230 | 31.17 |
| Senior clerk | 287 | 38.89 | |
| Section level | 186 | 25.20 | |
| Division level and above | 35 | 4.74 | |
| Work experience | 1–5 years | 246 | 33.33 |
| 6–10 years | 135 | 18.29 | |
| 11–15 years | 86 | 11.60 | |
| 16–20 years | 80 | 10.80 | |
| 20 years and above | 191 | 25.80 |
Figure 1Differences in cognition of fighting against COVID-19 at different posts and ranks.
Figure 2Differences in cognition of fighting against COVID-19 with different work-experience levels.
Multicollinearity diagnosis.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Gender | 0.910 | 1.099 |
| Educational background | 0.704 | 1.420 |
| Post and rank | 0.694 | 1.441 |
| Working experience | 0.765 | 1.308 |
| Whether it is necessary to return to work early | 0.889 | 1.125 |
| Doing everything possible to complete each job | 0.554 | 1.805 |
| The leader thinks that you complete the work faster and better than other colleagues | 0.789 | 1.267 |
| Willing to contribute when the country needs it | 0.593 | 1.687 |
| Requesting clear instructions from superiors regardless of it being an important or trivial matter | 0.887 | 1.127 |
| Frequency of reporting to the superior | 0.939 | 1.065 |
| Disclosure of epidemic information | 0.538 | 1.859 |
| Propaganda and popularization of epidemic prevention knowledge | 0.426 | 2.348 |
| Production and supply of medical supplies | 0.532 | 1.879 |
| Disinfection and epidemic prevention in public places | 0.395 | 2.533 |
| Rumor investigation and punishment | 0.465 | 2.152 |
| Effectiveness of epidemic prevention and control measures | 0.593 | 1.686 |
| Whether the emergency plan is sound or not | 0.916 | 1.091 |
| Local government emergency capacity | 0.829 | 1.207 |
| Coordination of various departments | 0.829 | 1.207 |
| Whether social organizations are fully involved | 0.896 | 1.116 |
VIF is the abbreviation of variance inflation factor.
Logistic model estimation results.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual characteristics | Gender | −0.139 | 0.348 | 0.157 | 0.692 | 0.871 |
| Educational background | 0.719*** | 0.269 | 7.146 | 0.008 | 0.487 | |
| Post and rank | 0.114 | 0.244 | 0.217 | 0.642 | 1.120 | |
| Working experience | 0.020 | 0.124 | 0.025 | 0.874 | 1.020 | |
| Attitudes and actions | Whether it is necessary to return to work early | 1.063*** | 0.350 | 9.231 | 0.002 | 2.896 |
| Doing everything possible to complete each job | 0.978*** | 0.320 | 9.319 | 0.002 | 2.659 | |
| The leader thinks that you complete the work faster and better than other colleagues | 1.383*** | 0.233 | 35.214 | 0.000 | 3.989 | |
| Willing to contribute when the country needs it | 0.423 | 0.390 | 1.172 | 0.279 | 1.526 | |
| Requesting clear instructions from superiors regardless of it being an important or trivial matter | −0.271 | 0.173 | 2.460 | 0.117 | 0.762 | |
| Frequency of reporting to the superior | −0.392* | 0.204 | 3.679 | 0.055 | 0.676 | |
| Level of concern with work | Disclosure of epidemic information | 0.879*** | 0.333 | 6.955 | 0.008 | 0.415 |
| Propaganda and popularization of epidemic prevention knowledge | 0.058 | 0.363 | 0.026 | 0.873 | 1.060 | |
| Production and supply of medical supplies | 0.505* | 0.284 | 3.166 | 0.075 | 1.657 | |
| Disinfection and epidemic prevention in public places | −0.436 | 0.389 | 1.261 | 0.261 | 0.646 | |
| Rumor investigation and punishment | 0.696** | 0.347 | 4.015 | 0.045 | 2.006 | |
| Anti-Epidemic measures | Effectiveness of epidemic prevention and control measures | 0.795** | 0.337 | 5.572 | 0.018 | 2.215 |
| Whether the emergency plan is sound or not | 0.656* | 0.386 | 2.883 | 0.089 | 1.927 | |
| Local government emergency capacity | −0.617 | 0.465 | 1.758 | 0.185 | 0.540 | |
| Coordination of various departments | 0.254 | 0.406 | 0.391 | 0.532 | 1.289 | |
| Whether social organizations are fully involved | −0.090 | 0.391 | 0.053 | 0.818 | 0.914 | |
| Constant | −8.568*** | 2.421 | 12.524 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
|
| 0.387 | |||||
| Correctly classified | 93.63% | |||||
| Log-Likelihood | −125.975 | |||||
, **, and *** represent significance levels of 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. S. E., standard error; Sig., significance; Exp., Exponential. R2 indicates coefficient of determination.