Feasibility, psychological outcomes and practical use of a stress-preventive leadership intervention in the workplace hospital: the results of a mixed-method phase-II study.
education & training (see medical education & training)
mental health
occupational & industrial medicine
public health
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 02 2022
23 02 2022
Historique:
entrez:
24
2
2022
pubmed:
25
2
2022
medline:
23
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hospitals are psychologically demanding workplaces with a need for context-specific stress-preventive leadership interventions. A stress-preventive interprofessional leadership intervention for middle management has been developed. This phase-II study investigates its feasibility and outcomes, including work-related stress, well-being and transformational leadership. This is a mixed-methods study with three measure points (T0: baseline, T1: after the last training session, T2: 3-month follow-up). Additionally, focus groups were conducted to assess participants' change in everyday work. A tertiary hospital in Germany. N=93 leaders of different professions. An interactive group setting intervention divided in five separate sessions ((1) self-care as a leader, (2) leadership attitudes and behaviour, (3) motives, needs and stressors of employees, (4) strengthen the resource 'team', (5) reflection and focus groups). The intervention was conducted between June 2018 and March 2020 in k=5 runs of the intervention. Feasibility and acceptance were measured with a self-developed intervention specific questionnaire. Psychological outcomes were assessed with the following scales: work-related strain with the Irritation Scale, well-being with the WHO-5 Well-being Index and transformational leadership with the Questionnaire of Integrative Leadership. After the intervention at T2, over 90% of participants reported that they would recommend the intervention to another coworker (92.1%, n=59) and all participants (n=64) were satisfied with the intervention and rated the intervention as practical relevant for their everyday work. Participants' self-rated cognitive irritation was reduced, whereas their well-being and transformational leadership behaviour were improved over time. Focus group discussions revealed that participants implemented intervention contents successfully in their everyday work. This intervention was feasible and showed first promising intraindividual changes in psychological outcomes. Participants confirmed its practical relevance. As a next step, the intervention will be evaluated as part of a multicentre-randomised controlled trial within the project SEEGEN (SEElische GEsundheit am Arbeitsplatz KrankeNhaus).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35197332
pii: bmjopen-2021-049951
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049951
pmc: PMC8867373
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e049951Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: SuS is the owner of Echt-Zeit Coaching, Esslingen (Germany), and was involved in the development and implementation of the intervention sessions together with FS and TS-D as part of cooperation with the University Hospital Tuebingen.
Références
BMC Public Health. 2019 Dec 17;19(1):1694
pubmed: 31847898
BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 26;5(10):e007981
pubmed: 26503383
Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167-76
pubmed: 25831962
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 18;8:1754
pubmed: 29093688
Healthc Manage Forum. 2018 May;31(3):81-86
pubmed: 29717647
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Sep;20(9):866-70
pubmed: 16117759
Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 May;15(2):61-6
pubmed: 19341981
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 15;6(6):e011369
pubmed: 27311909
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2013 Nov;138(47):2401-6
pubmed: 24221974
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 4;14(1):e0209487
pubmed: 30608945
Open Nurs J. 2018 Jun 29;12:133-141
pubmed: 30159098
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2001 Oct;34(5):401-7
pubmed: 11718103
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Apr;107(14):248-53
pubmed: 20436777
J Occup Health Psychol. 1996 Jan;1(1):27-41
pubmed: 9547031
J Occup Health Psychol. 2017 Jul;22(3):381-393
pubmed: 28150998
J Occup Health. 2011;53(1):1-9
pubmed: 21079372
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021 Feb;94(2):203-220
pubmed: 33011902
J Appl Psychol. 2006 Jan;91(1):58-69
pubmed: 16435938
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Aug;49(4):1494-1502
pubmed: 27620283
Occup Med (Lond). 2017 Jul 01;67(5):356-362
pubmed: 28510762
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 25;12(8):e0183019
pubmed: 28841662
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0159015
pubmed: 27391946
Lancet. 2019 Jul 13;394(10193):93
pubmed: 31305255
Occup Environ Med. 2003 Jan;60(1):27-33; discussion 33-4
pubmed: 12499453
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2021 Nov 29;16(1):51
pubmed: 34844608
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;198(6):653.e1-7
pubmed: 18279823
J Occup Health. 2020 Jan;62(1):e12175
pubmed: 33131192
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):184-90
pubmed: 19467822
Hum Resour Health. 2015 Sep 08;13:74
pubmed: 26350545
Med Educ. 2016 Apr;50(4):469-84
pubmed: 26995485
Psychol Bull. 1965 Jun;63:384-99
pubmed: 14314073
Hosp Top. 2005 Fall;83(4):11-7
pubmed: 16425697
Australas Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;24(3):235-9
pubmed: 26917854
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 25;9:CD010905
pubmed: 31560414