Barriers and drivers of psychosocial risk assessments in German micro and small-sized enterprises: a qualitative study with owners and managers.
Health promotion
Health promotion implementation
Job stress
Micro- and small enterprises
Occupational health and safety
Psychosocial stress
Qualitative research
Risk assessment
Small firms
Working conditions
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 07 2021
12 07 2021
Historique:
received:
16
10
2020
accepted:
29
06
2021
entrez:
12
7
2021
pubmed:
13
7
2021
medline:
6
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The negative effect of unfavorable working conditions and long-term work stress on health has been demonstrated in previous research. To address these challenges, systematic approaches such as psychosocial risk assessments (PRA) have been developed in many countries worldwide. Despite legal obligations, psychosocial risk assessments are rarely carried out in micro and small-sized enterprises (MSE). Even though those enterprises constitute a large proportion of the general workforce, this area remains largely untouched by research. In order to enable starting points for a greater dissemination in organizational practice, the present study explores barriers and drivers of psychosocial risk assessments in micro and small-sized enterprises. A total of 18 owners and managers from 15 micro and small-sized enterprises in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. A qualitative approach was applied: Content analysis was used to analyze the data, using deductive as well as inductive coding techniques. The following barriers emerged from the interviews: Negative PRA image, stigmatization of mental health, lacking acceptance of employees, fear of excessive authority interference, ignorance of PRA, not understanding the necessity, inappropriate approach, and limited resources. The identified drivers were: Easy access to PRA material, external support from experts, renaming the term "workplace risk assessment", understanding content and benefit of PRA, simplify and revise PRA process, and noticeable consequences of PRA execution and non-execution. The results are comparable with those in larger companies. They emphasize the importance of mental health education, improving the process of psychosocial risk assessments, and the ongoing support in overcoming limited financial as well as human resources. To improve implementation of PRA in organizational practice, a simplification of the process is proposed, accompanied by information campaigns and an improvement in the health literacy of owners and managers of MSE. In view of the results, the full revision of the PRA approach should also be considered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The negative effect of unfavorable working conditions and long-term work stress on health has been demonstrated in previous research. To address these challenges, systematic approaches such as psychosocial risk assessments (PRA) have been developed in many countries worldwide. Despite legal obligations, psychosocial risk assessments are rarely carried out in micro and small-sized enterprises (MSE). Even though those enterprises constitute a large proportion of the general workforce, this area remains largely untouched by research. In order to enable starting points for a greater dissemination in organizational practice, the present study explores barriers and drivers of psychosocial risk assessments in micro and small-sized enterprises.
METHODS
A total of 18 owners and managers from 15 micro and small-sized enterprises in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. A qualitative approach was applied: Content analysis was used to analyze the data, using deductive as well as inductive coding techniques.
RESULTS
The following barriers emerged from the interviews: Negative PRA image, stigmatization of mental health, lacking acceptance of employees, fear of excessive authority interference, ignorance of PRA, not understanding the necessity, inappropriate approach, and limited resources. The identified drivers were: Easy access to PRA material, external support from experts, renaming the term "workplace risk assessment", understanding content and benefit of PRA, simplify and revise PRA process, and noticeable consequences of PRA execution and non-execution. The results are comparable with those in larger companies. They emphasize the importance of mental health education, improving the process of psychosocial risk assessments, and the ongoing support in overcoming limited financial as well as human resources.
CONCLUSIONS
To improve implementation of PRA in organizational practice, a simplification of the process is proposed, accompanied by information campaigns and an improvement in the health literacy of owners and managers of MSE. In view of the results, the full revision of the PRA approach should also be considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34247620
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11416-1
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11416-1
pmc: PMC8273035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1376Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 02L16D020
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019 Apr;92(3):435-451
pubmed: 30756179
J Occup Environ Med. 2010 Jun;52(6):626-34
pubmed: 20523236
Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:337-54
pubmed: 23297662
Epidemiology. 2017 Jul;28(4):619-626
pubmed: 28570388
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Nov 7;6(11):e15373
pubmed: 31697243
Public Health. 2020 Apr;181:24-33
pubmed: 31927337
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Psychol Med. 2017 Jun;47(8):1342-1356
pubmed: 28122650
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jul 11;16(14):
pubmed: 31336707
Saf Health Work. 2012 Sep;3(3):181-91
pubmed: 23019530
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:213089
pubmed: 26557655
Front Neurosci. 2019 Oct 01;13:997
pubmed: 31632231
Stigma Health. 2018 Nov;3(4):348-376
pubmed: 30505939
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct 13;17(20):
pubmed: 33066111
Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:327-42
pubmed: 24387086
Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019 Sep;25(3):485-494
pubmed: 29557281
Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2016;22(1):102-15
pubmed: 26654679
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Saf Health Work. 2015 Dec;6(4):295-304
pubmed: 26929841
Health Promot Int. 2017 Oct 1;32(5):831-839
pubmed: 27006365
Ann Work Expo Health. 2018 Sep 13;62(suppl_1):S93-S100
pubmed: 30212883
J Occup Health. 2017 Sep 28;59(5):433-435
pubmed: 28819083
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 01;17(3):
pubmed: 32024155