Comparing perceived psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in two university hospitals in Germany with other German professionals - feasibility of scale conversion between two versions of the German Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ).
COPSOQ database
Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire
Explorative statistical analysis
Hospitals
Nurses
Physicians
Psychosocial working conditions
Reference data
Journal
Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)
ISSN: 1745-6673
Titre abrégé: J Occup Med Toxicol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245790
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
09
03
2020
accepted:
04
08
2020
entrez:
27
8
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
28
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In 2015, the WorkSafeMed study assessed, amongst others, perceived psychosocial working conditions in nurses ( We applied a multistep approach for conversion. First, we compared 17 COPSOQ scales used in the WorkSafeMed study with the corresponding scales from the G-COPSOQ III according to content and then decided if a conversion was appropriate. If possible, we converted WorkSafeMed scales - the converted scales comprised the same content and number of items as in G-COPSOQ III. An explorative statistical analysis for each original and converted WorkSafeMed scale followed detecting possible statistical and relevant differences between the scales. We then compared converted WorkSafeMed scales with reference data from the German COPSOQ database. Based on the comparison undertaken according to content, a conversion was possible for 16 scales. Using the data from the WorkSafeMed study, the statistical analysis showed only differences between original and converted COPSOQ scales The conversion of WorkSafeMed scales was appropriate, allowed a comparison with three reference values in the German COPSOQ database and revealed some implications for improving psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in university hospitals in Germany.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In 2015, the WorkSafeMed study assessed, amongst others, perceived psychosocial working conditions in nurses (
METHODS
METHODS
We applied a multistep approach for conversion. First, we compared 17 COPSOQ scales used in the WorkSafeMed study with the corresponding scales from the G-COPSOQ III according to content and then decided if a conversion was appropriate. If possible, we converted WorkSafeMed scales - the converted scales comprised the same content and number of items as in G-COPSOQ III. An explorative statistical analysis for each original and converted WorkSafeMed scale followed detecting possible statistical and relevant differences between the scales. We then compared converted WorkSafeMed scales with reference data from the German COPSOQ database.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on the comparison undertaken according to content, a conversion was possible for 16 scales. Using the data from the WorkSafeMed study, the statistical analysis showed only differences between original and converted COPSOQ scales
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The conversion of WorkSafeMed scales was appropriate, allowed a comparison with three reference values in the German COPSOQ database and revealed some implications for improving psychosocial working conditions of nurses and physicians in university hospitals in Germany.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32843890
doi: 10.1186/s12995-020-00277-w
pii: 277
pmc: PMC7439506
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
26Investigateurs
E Luntz
(E)
M A Rieger
(MA)
H Sturm
(H)
A Wagner
(A)
A Hammer
(A)
T Manser
(T)
P Martus
(P)
M Holderried
(M)
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jul 21;10:428
pubmed: 20663137
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 18;9(11):e034609
pubmed: 31740477
JAMA. 2002 Oct 23-30;288(16):1987-93
pubmed: 12387650
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005 Dec;31(6):438-49
pubmed: 16425585
Am J Ind Med. 2014 Jan;57(1):97-107
pubmed: 24009215
Arch Environ Occup Health. 2019;74(6):297-309
pubmed: 30595109
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug 10;17(1):551
pubmed: 28797258
Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Dec;18(6):424-8
pubmed: 19955451
Med Care. 2007 May;45(5):448-55
pubmed: 17446831
Health Serv Res. 2008 Aug;43(4):1145-63
pubmed: 18248404
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 4;14(1):e0209487
pubmed: 30608945
Anaesthesist. 2012 Nov;61(11):941-7
pubmed: 23135773
Hum Resour Health. 2015 Sep 08;13:74
pubmed: 26350545
Gesundheitswesen. 2019 Apr;81(4):309-318
pubmed: 29245167
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013 Jul;73(7):713-719
pubmed: 24771928
Med Care. 2016 Jan;54(1):74-80
pubmed: 26783858
Psychol Methods. 2002 Jun;7(2):147-77
pubmed: 12090408
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2004 Apr;43(2):109-15
pubmed: 15100920
Scand J Public Health. 2010 Feb;38(3 Suppl):8-24
pubmed: 21172767
Lancet. 2014 May 24;383(9931):1824-30
pubmed: 24581683
Psychosoc Med. 2006 Oct 18;3:Doc05
pubmed: 19742072
Saf Health Work. 2019 Dec;10(4):482-503
pubmed: 31890332
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Feb;50(2):143-53
pubmed: 23254247
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Feb 1;:
pubmed: 22302351
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Aug 13;9:148
pubmed: 19678932
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2017 Aug 9;12:24
pubmed: 28808478
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 May 02;17(9):
pubmed: 32370228
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2014 Feb 05;9(1):4
pubmed: 24499468
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012 Oct;154(10):1935-40
pubmed: 22688611
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 15;6(6):e011369
pubmed: 27311909
BMJ Open. 2015 May 03;5(4):e006871
pubmed: 25941177
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Sep 27;15(10):
pubmed: 30262790
BMC Public Health. 2008 Oct 07;8:353
pubmed: 18840296
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 30;13(4):e0196450
pubmed: 29708998
Scand J Public Health. 2010 Feb;38(3 Suppl):120-4
pubmed: 21172777
Radiat Oncol. 2009 Feb 06;4:6
pubmed: 19200364
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 21;19(1):53
pubmed: 30665401