Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40788920›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Pandemic preparedness in shaping psychosocial working conditions - insights for occupational safety and health from a longitudinal mixed-methods study during the COVID-19 pandemic at six company sites of one organization in Germany.

Jana Soeder, Christine Preiser, Anke Wagner, Anna T Neunhöffer, Falko Papenfuss, Juliane Schwille-Kiuntke, Andrea Wittich, Esther Rind, Monika A Rieger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jana SoederInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2263-3012
Christine PreiserInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Anke WagnerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Anna T NeunhöfferInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Falko PapenfussMedical Services, Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany.
Juliane Schwille-KiuntkeInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Andrea WittichOccupational Psychologist and Psychotherapist, Tübingen, Germany.
Esther RindInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Monika A RiegerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7855-3663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis longitudinal mixed-methods study explores how one company group dealt with COVID-19 pandemic-related challenges and how employees and managers perceived work-related psychosocial demands in Germany. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed panel survey data from 322 employees and managers across diverse working fields, e.g., assembly line/production, office, company medical service, and factory security service. Employees and managers were recruited from six German company sites in the federal states of Bavaria, Baden-Wurttemberg, and Lower Saxony of one large company group. The survey was conducted in August-October 2020, January 2021, and October-November 2021. Participants self-reported their perceived psychosocial demands from aspects of work organization, work environment, work content, and social relations at work during and retrospectively before the COVID-19 pandemic on a 5-point Likert scale. Additionally, nine managers were interviewed in September-October 2020 and April-May 2021 about pandemic-related changes in working conditions, organizational processes to adapt working conditions, and a culture of trust. For contextualization, we performed a comprehensive document analysis of prevailing national and federal laws and OSH-regulations for infection control in Germany.

resultsQuantitative results revealed that participants perceived stable psychosocial demands during the pandemic. Psychosocial demands relating to work organization were perceived as stressful, especially for managers and company's medical service personnel. No statistically significant changes were identified with respect to psychosocial demand ratings during compared to before the pandemic. Qualitative results highlighted that a crisis management team, a culture of trust, extensive and transparent communication, and participatory approaches in change processes were key to managing pandemic-related challenges.

conclusionOur findings contribute to a contextualized understanding of how the design of good and sustainable working conditions ensuredwork ability during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. They highlight the importance of pandemic preparedness in an organization's psychosocial work design to successfully manage challenging times. The derived learnings for organizational pandemic preparedness on a meso-, macro-, and micro-level are of lasting significance with a view to future global challenges in terms of the design of good psychosocial working conditions.

Indexed as

COVID-19Occupational HealthWorkplaceAdultFemaleGermanyHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPandemic PreparednessPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesWorking Conditions

Identifiers

PMID40788920
PMCPMC12338823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.