ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
The main predictors of well-being and productivity from a gender perspective.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying effective coping strategies against mobbing for Generations Y and Z using a Pythagorean fuzzy decision support mechanism.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Gender-specific perception of job stressors and resources: a structural equation model-based secondary analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Gender difference management is one of the most challenging dimensions organizations must cope with to adapt to VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) environments. The aim of this study is to identify the main drivers (i.e., most influential job resources, job demands, and organizational practices) of healthy employees and organizational outcomes assessing the differences between men and women, based on the HERO (HEalthy and Resilient Organization) Model. Methods: Data were collected through the HERO-CHECK Questionnaire: job demands (e.g., quantitative overload), job (e.g., team coordination) and personal resources (e.g., emotional competence), healthy organizational practices (e.g., work-family balance practices), healthy employees (e.g., work engagement) and healthy organizational outcomes (e.g., in-role performance). The sample consisted of 2,128 professionals (70% female) from 8 organizations. Gender-based multigroup SEM was performed using R 4.1.2. Results: Results of the multigroup SEM analysis show a good fit of the HERO model and support the existence of configural invariance among gender groups. This research shows that women perceive more resources to cope with demands, in consequence, they perceive more well-being and better job performance. Regardless of gender, coordination, horizontal trust, vertical trust, and emotional competence stand as relevant resources for achieving healthy employees and healthy organizational outcomes. However, there are gender-specific predictors of healthy employees and healthy organizational outcomes, depending on gender. Discussion: Based on these results, gender-related recommendations for promoting specific resources (e.g., autonomy in women) and preventing specific demands (e.g., mobbing in men) may be suggested in organizational contexts.
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.