ArticleScientific reports2026
Psychosocial work environment and subjective well being among healthcare professionals using structural equation modeling, mediation and scale development.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The psychosocial work environment factors are a key determinant of healthcare professionals' subjective well-being (SWB); however, the mechanisms through which these factors operate remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to develop and validate a context-specific measurement instrument and to examine how psychosocial work-environment factors influence SWB, focusing on psychological mechanisms. A cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare professionals (N = 333) in a Latvian inpatient healthcare institution. The sample was randomly split for exploratory (n = 140) and confirmatory (n = 193) factor analyses. Psychosocial work environment factors were assessed using an author-developed instrument grounded in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, while SWB was measured using the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with a robust estimator (WLSMV) was applied. The final measurement model demonstrated good fit (CFI = 0.979; TLI = 0.970; RMSEA = 0.059; SRMR = 0.055). Psychosocial work environment factors explained up to 40% of SWB variance. Organisational support and trust (β = 0.420, p < 0.001) and professional fulfilment (β = 0.311, p < 0.001) emerged as significant predictors. Job demands and other factors were not directly associated with SWB. Mediation analysis showed that professional fulfilment partially mediated the relationships between organisational support and trust (31.2%) and perceived professional value (42.3%) with SWB. Sociodemographic variables were not significant. These findings suggest that SWB among healthcare professionals is primarily shaped by psychosocial job resources. Professional fulfilment is a central mechanism linking work environment conditions to well-being. The validated instrument provides a robust tool for assessing psychosocial work environments.
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.