怀孕医院员工的工作场所干预——一项评估健康措施的随机分组试验。

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q1 NURSING

Midwifery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2024.104261

Jane Lauridsen , Anne-Mette Hedeager Momsen , Pernille Pedersen , Mette Lausten Hansen , Ane-Marie Thulstrup , Rikke Damkjær Maimburg

{"title":"怀孕医院员工的工作场所干预——一项评估健康措施的随机分组试验。","authors":"Jane Lauridsen , Anne-Mette Hedeager Momsen , Pernille Pedersen , Mette Lausten Hansen , Ane-Marie Thulstrup , Rikke Damkjær Maimburg","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2024.104261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Problem</h3><div>Pregnant employees may experience work-related challenges, including inadequate attention to their unique needs.</div></div><div><h3>Background</h3><div>Unmet needs for work adjustment are associated with sick leave and reduced well-being, and supportive environments are regarded as a protective factor against sick leave.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To evaluate the effect of midwifery support focusing on work adjustment on pregnant hospital employees' well-being defined by work ability and dimensions of the psychosocial work environment.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. Well-being-related outcomes at baseline and follow-up were measured with The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) and Work Ability questionnaires. Intermediate outcomes were work adjustments, measured by non-validated survey items. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed with mixed-effect models.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Work adjustments was reported for 16 % (95 % CI 0.07;0.25) more intervention group participants. Group differences in change of mean outcome scores for the COPSOQ items were: 0.02 (95 % CI -0.12;0.09) for Job Satisfaction, 0.05 (95 % CI -0.25;0.35) for Influence, -0.16 (95 % CI -0.41;0.09) for Quality of Leadership, 0.25 (95 % CI -0.05;0.54) for Work-Family Conflict, -0.03 (95 % CI -0.21;0.15) for Self-Rated Health, 0.04 (95 % CI -0.26;0.34) for Burnout. The group difference in mean outcome score for the Work Ability Scale was -0.38 (95 % CI -0.91;0.11).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>The used survey items may not have captured all aspects of well-being and non-participation may have compromised the possibility to detect a difference between groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Pregnant employees' well-being was not improved with midwifery support. However, work adjustment increased significantly. The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID number 29–2019–03 on June 16, 2022.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 104261"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Workplace intervention among pregnant hospital employees - a cluster randomised trial evaluating well-being measures\",\"authors\":\"Jane Lauridsen , Anne-Mette Hedeager Momsen , Pernille Pedersen , Mette Lausten Hansen , Ane-Marie Thulstrup , Rikke Damkjær Maimburg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.midw.2024.104261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Problem</h3><div>Pregnant employees may experience work-related challenges, including inadequate attention to their unique needs.</div></div><div><h3>Background</h3><div>Unmet needs for work adjustment are associated with sick leave and reduced well-being, and supportive environments are regarded as a protective factor against sick leave.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To evaluate the effect of midwifery support focusing on work adjustment on pregnant hospital employees' well-being defined by work ability and dimensions of the psychosocial work environment.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. Well-being-related outcomes at baseline and follow-up were measured with The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) and Work Ability questionnaires. Intermediate outcomes were work adjustments, measured by non-validated survey items. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed with mixed-effect models.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Work adjustments was reported for 16 % (95 % CI 0.07;0.25) more intervention group participants. Group differences in change of mean outcome scores for the COPSOQ items were: 0.02 (95 % CI -0.12;0.09) for Job Satisfaction, 0.05 (95 % CI -0.25;0.35) for Influence, -0.16 (95 % CI -0.41;0.09) for Quality of Leadership, 0.25 (95 % CI -0.05;0.54) for Work-Family Conflict, -0.03 (95 % CI -0.21;0.15) for Self-Rated Health, 0.04 (95 % CI -0.26;0.34) for Burnout. The group difference in mean outcome score for the Work Ability Scale was -0.38 (95 % CI -0.91;0.11).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>The used survey items may not have captured all aspects of well-being and non-participation may have compromised the possibility to detect a difference between groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Pregnant employees' well-being was not improved with midwifery support. However, work adjustment increased significantly. The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID number 29–2019–03 on June 16, 2022.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18495,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Midwifery\",\"volume\":\"141 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104261\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824003449\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824003449","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

问题：怀孕的员工可能会遇到与工作相关的挑战，包括对她们独特需求的关注不足。背景：未满足的工作调整需求与病假和幸福感下降有关，支持性环境被认为是防止病假的保护因素。目的：评价以工作适应为重点的助产支持对医院孕妇员工工作能力和工作心理社会环境维度定义的幸福感的影响。方法：采用整群随机对照试验。基线和随访时的幸福相关结果用哥本哈根社会心理问卷（COPSOQ）和工作能力问卷测量。中间结果是工作调整，由未验证的调查项目测量。意向治疗分析采用混合效应模型。研究结果：干预组参与者的工作调整率高出16% （95% CI 0.07;0.25）。COPSOQ项目平均结果得分变化的组差异为：工作满意度为0.02 (95% CI -0.12;0.09)，影响力为0.05 (95% CI -0.25;0.35)，领导质量为-0.16 (95% CI -0.41;0.09)，工作-家庭冲突为0.25 (95% CI -0.05;0.54)，自我评估健康为-0.03 (95% CI -0.21;0.15)，倦怠为0.04 （95% CI -0.26;0.34）。工作能力量表的平均结果评分组间差异为-0.38 （95% CI -0.91;0.11）。讨论：使用的调查项目可能没有捕捉到幸福的所有方面，不参与可能会损害发现群体之间差异的可能性。结论：助产支持并不能改善孕妇员工的幸福感。但工作调整明显增加。该试验于2022年6月16日在ClinicalTrials.gov注册，ID号为29-2019-03。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Workplace intervention among pregnant hospital employees - a cluster randomised trial evaluating well-being measures

Problem

Pregnant employees may experience work-related challenges, including inadequate attention to their unique needs.

Background

Unmet needs for work adjustment are associated with sick leave and reduced well-being, and supportive environments are regarded as a protective factor against sick leave.

Aim

To evaluate the effect of midwifery support focusing on work adjustment on pregnant hospital employees' well-being defined by work ability and dimensions of the psychosocial work environment.

Methods

A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. Well-being-related outcomes at baseline and follow-up were measured with The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) and Work Ability questionnaires. Intermediate outcomes were work adjustments, measured by non-validated survey items. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed with mixed-effect models.

Findings

Work adjustments was reported for 16 % (95 % CI 0.07;0.25) more intervention group participants. Group differences in change of mean outcome scores for the COPSOQ items were: 0.02 (95 % CI -0.12;0.09) for Job Satisfaction, 0.05 (95 % CI -0.25;0.35) for Influence, -0.16 (95 % CI -0.41;0.09) for Quality of Leadership, 0.25 (95 % CI -0.05;0.54) for Work-Family Conflict, -0.03 (95 % CI -0.21;0.15) for Self-Rated Health, 0.04 (95 % CI -0.26;0.34) for Burnout. The group difference in mean outcome score for the Work Ability Scale was -0.38 (95 % CI -0.91;0.11).

Discussion

The used survey items may not have captured all aspects of well-being and non-participation may have compromised the possibility to detect a difference between groups.

Conclusion

Pregnant employees' well-being was not improved with midwifery support. However, work adjustment increased significantly. The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with ID number 29–2019–03 on June 16, 2022.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Midwifery 医学-护理

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

7.40%

发文量

221

审稿时长

13.4 weeks

期刊介绍： Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.