ArticleBMC health services research2024
Public health care staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison of job demands and work functioning between temporary and permanent staff.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed an enormous challenge on the public health workforce, leading to the hiring of much temporary staff. Temporary staff may experience poorer working conditions compared to permanent staff. From a public health perspective, we need to know how working conditions are experienced when there is an acute pressure on recruiting sufficient public health care staff. This study aimed to investigate differences in job demands and work functioning between temporary and permanent public health care staff, during the fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands and compare it with available pre-pandemic data from the general working population.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included temporary (n = 193) and permanent (n = 98) public health care staff from a municipal health care service in the north of the Netherlands. The participants completed a questionnaire with items about quantitative, cognitive, emotional demands (Copenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire, COPSOQ, range 1-100) and work functioning (Work Role Functioning Questionnaire, WRFQ, range 1-100). The participants' scores were compared to the general working population and differences between temporary and permanent staff were investigated using linear regression analysis. In addition, explorative analyses were conducted with temporary staff stratified by task and permanent staff by department.
resultsPermanent staff had relatively high scores on job demands compared to the general working population, whereas temporary staff had relatively low scores. On work functioning, permanent staff had similar scores as the general working population and temporary staff had better scores. Compared to permanent staff, temporary staff had lower, i.e. better, scores on quantitative (regression coefficient (B)=-26.7; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -30.8 to -22.5), cognitive (B=-24.4; 95% CI -29.0 to -19.9), and emotional demands (B=-11.8; 95% CI -16.0 to -7.7), and better scores on work functioning (B = 7.8; 95% CI 4.5 to 11.3).
conclusionsTemporary staff experienced lower job demands and reported better work functioning than permanent staff. The acute expansion of the public health workforce did not seem to negatively impact the job demands and work functioning of temporary public health care staff.
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.