Measuring quality of life at work for healthcare and social services workers: A systematic review of available instruments

衡量医护人员和社会服务工作者工作生活质量:现有工具的系统性综述

阅读:2

Abstract

Quality of life at work is an important and widely discussed concept in the literature. Several instruments can be used to measure it, but with regard to healthcare and social services, the existing instruments are not well known. A review of available instruments intending to capture the quality of life of healthcare and social services workers (QoLHSSW) is necessary to better assess their working conditions and promote programs/guidelines to improve these conditions. The aim of this study was to identify the existing instruments used in measuring QoLHSSW and explore their characteristics. Particular attention was given to instruments adapted to the province of Quebec, Canada, which enabled the determination of which instruments are adapted for the measurement of QoLHSSW in Quebec and possibly elsewhere. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the JBI methodological guide. The articles' selection procedure was performed according to the PRISMA flowchart. The search was conducted up to October 28, 2021, and then updated on January 25, 2023, in four databases: PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL. The selection and extraction were performed independently by two researchers. The analysis of the quality of the studies was performed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. From a total of 8178 entries, 13 articles corresponding to 13 instruments were selected. Among these instruments, the common aspects that were considered were work conditions, job satisfaction, stress at work, relationship/balance, and career development. Most instruments used a 5-point Likert scale. Various validation methods were used, including reporting Cronbach's alpha for overall scale reliability; factor analysis to test construct validity; different model fit indices to test model superiority; different language comparisons to test cross-cultural validity; and qualitative expert reviews to assess content validity.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。