Harmful and benign work stress and work resilience: A Delphi-study in employees and experts

IF 2.5 4区医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY

European Journal of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejpsy.2022.05.002

I. Elfeddali , E. Jacobs , C.M. van der Feltz-Cornelis

{"title":"Harmful and benign work stress and work resilience: A Delphi-study in employees and experts","authors":"I. Elfeddali , E. Jacobs , C.M. van der Feltz-Cornelis","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpsy.2022.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>In this study, we introduce the concept of benign versus harmful work stress. Our objectives are to explore how to discern benign work stress from harmful work stress and to identify the factors that promote work resilience.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An online Delphi study with three rounds, incorporating open-ended questions and statements, was administered to mental health employees and experts. Statements were rated on a 7-point scale: an interquartile deviation (IQD ≤ 1) was considered as consensus.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the first round 20 employees and 14 experts were included, in the second round 87 employees and 35 experts, and in the third round 53 employees and nine experts. There was consensus about seven characteristics of harmful stress, eight of benign work stress, 24 individual factors that promote resilience, and eight team factors that promote resilience.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Consensus was achieved about factors relevant to benign versus harmful work stress and resilience at work</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12045,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213616322000398/pdfft?md5=047bb5eb2d7a6af1532f17d565feeb1b&pid=1-s2.0-S0213616322000398-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213616322000398","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background and objectives

In this study, we introduce the concept of benign versus harmful work stress. Our objectives are to explore how to discern benign work stress from harmful work stress and to identify the factors that promote work resilience.

Methods

An online Delphi study with three rounds, incorporating open-ended questions and statements, was administered to mental health employees and experts. Statements were rated on a 7-point scale: an interquartile deviation (IQD ≤ 1) was considered as consensus.

Results

In the first round 20 employees and 14 experts were included, in the second round 87 employees and 35 experts, and in the third round 53 employees and nine experts. There was consensus about seven characteristics of harmful stress, eight of benign work stress, 24 individual factors that promote resilience, and eight team factors that promote resilience.

Conclusion

Consensus was achieved about factors relevant to benign versus harmful work stress and resilience at work

查看原文本刊更多论文

有害与良性工作压力与工作弹性:员工与专家的德尔菲研究

背景与目的在本研究中，我们引入了良性与有害工作压力的概念。我们的目标是探索如何区分良性工作压力和有害工作压力，并确定促进工作弹性的因素。方法对心理健康工作人员和专家进行为期三轮的在线德尔菲研究，包括开放式问题和陈述。陈述按7分制进行评分：四分位数间偏差（IQD≤1）被认为是一致的。结果第一轮包括20名员工和14名专家，第二轮包括87名员工和35名专家，而第三轮包括53名员工和9名专家。关于有害压力的7个特征、良性工作压力的8个特征、促进复原力的24个个人因素和促进复原力8个团队因素，达成了共识。结论在与良性和有害工作压力和工作弹性相关的因素上达成了共识

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

43 days

期刊介绍： The European journal of psychiatry is a quarterly publication founded in 1986 and directed by Professor Seva until his death in 2004. It was originally intended to report “the scientific activity of European psychiatrists” and “to bring about a greater degree of communication” among them. However, “since scientific knowledge has no geographical or cultural boundaries, is open to contributions from all over the world”. These principles are maintained in the new stage of the journal, now expanded with the help of an American editor.