ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Occupational Well-Being of Multidisciplinary PHC Teams: Barriers/Facilitators and Negotiations to Improve Working Conditions.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Working Environment in Primary Healthcare Outpatient Facilities: Assessment of Physical Factors and Health Professionals' Perceptions of Working Environment Conditions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Development of occupational well-being measurement model in the employee of Abadan University of Medical Sciences.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Musculoskeletal Pain in the Neck and Lower Back Regions among PHC Workers: Association between Workload, Mental Disorders, and Strategies to Manage Pain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Well-being at work is one of the factors determining healthy work conditions and is perceived by workers as a positive psychological state. In this study, the concept of well-being at work was used together with occupational functionality (i.e., current health state, current work environment, and barriers/facilitators to implementing well-being at work), occupational risk perception, and proactivity/negotiations held by workers to improve working conditions. In this context, the objectives were to identify the socio-demographic and occupational characteristics independently associated with levels of well-being at work of the multidisciplinary PHC health team; detect barriers or facilitators resulting from the attitudes of colleagues, community members, and managers that influence the well-being at work of the multidisciplinary health team; and identify with whom and what reasons led health workers to become proactive and negotiate improved working conditions. This cross-sectional study addressed 338 health workers from the multidisciplinary teams of PHC outpatient services in the extreme south of Brazil. Multivariate linear regression models were adopted to analyze data. The results show various independent associations with levels of well-being at work. Nursing workers (technicians and nurses) more frequently expressed job commitment and job satisfaction. Difficulties in solving problems and performing work routines, and co-workers' attitudes directly influence the well-being of the PHC team members. Risk perception (physical and chemical) also influences well-being. Negotiations in which PHC managers engaged to improve working conditions appeared as a significant predictor of job commitment, job satisfaction, and job involvement. The results reveal that well-being at work is an important indicator of the potential of workers' proactivity in negotiating improved working conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.