Dataset Information

How people fit in at work: systematic review of the association between person-organisation and person-group fit with staff outcomes in healthcare.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

People interact with their work environment through being, to a greater or lesser extent, compatible with aspects of their setting. This interaction between person and environment is particularly relevant in healthcare settings where compatibility affects not only the healthcare professionals, but also potentially the patient. One way to examine this association is to investigate person-organisation (P-O) fit and person-group (P-G) fit. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise knowledge on both P-O fit and P-G fit in healthcare to determine their association with staff outcomes. It was hypothesised that there would be a positive relationship between fit and staff outcomes, such that the experience of compatibility and 'fitting in' would be associated with better staff outcomes.

Design

A systematic review was conducted based on an extensive search strategy guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses to identify relevant literature.

Data sources

CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus.

Eligibility criteria

Articles were included if they were empirical studies, published in peer-reviewed journals in English language, set in a healthcare context and addressed the association that staff outcomes have with P-O and/or P-G fit.

Data extraction and synthesis

Included texts were examined for study characteristics, fit constructs examined and types of staff outcomes assessed. The Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

Twenty-eight articles were included in the review. Of these, 96.4% (27/28) reported a significant, positive association between perception of fit and staff outcomes in healthcare contexts, such that a sense of compatibility had various positive implications for staff, including job satisfaction and retention.

Conclusion

Although the results, as with all systematic reviews, are prone to bias and definitional ambiguity, they are still informative. Generally, the evidence suggests an association between employees' perceived compatibility with the workplace or organisation and a variety of staff outcomes in healthcare settings.

SUBMITTER: Herkes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6527974 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Organisational and workplace cultures are fundamental determinants of health systems performance; through better understanding of the dimensions of culture there is the potential to influence them, and subsequently improve safety and quality of care, as well as the experiences of both patients and staff. One promising conceptual framework for studying culture in healthcare is person-environment (P-E) fit. Comprising person-organisational (P-O) and person-group (P-G) components, P-E fit is defined as the extent to which individuals are compatible with their work environment. The aim of this study was to examine the associations of P-O and P-G fit with staff outcomes in mental healthcare. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Participants (n=213) were staff and volunteers at 31 primary mental health facilities across six states of Australia. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Staff outcomes, comprising burnout (depersonalisation and emotional exhaustion), job satisfaction and work stress. DESIGN:A multidimensional survey tool was used to measure P-O and P-G fit, and staff outcomes. Multiple regression analyses were used to test the associations between fit and outcome measures. RESULTS:The regression analyses indicated that, based on a Bonferroni adjusted alpha value of α=00417, P-O fit accounted for 36.6% of the variability in satisfaction (F=8.951, p≤0.001); 27.7% in emotional exhaustion (F=6.766, p≤0.001); 32.8% in depersonalisation (F=8.646, p≤0.001); and 23.5% in work stress (F=5.439, p≤0.001). The P-G fit results were less conclusive, with P-G fit accounting for 15.8% of the variability in satisfaction (F=4.184, p≤0.001); 10.0% in emotional exhaustion (F=2.488, p=0.014); 28.6% in depersonalisation (F=8.945, p≤0.001); and 10.4% in work stress (F=2.590, p=0.032). There was no statistically significant increase in the variability accounted for when the interaction term of P-O and P-G fit was added to the regression. CONCLUSIONS:The findings highlight that staff's perception of their workplace and organisational culture can have implications for staff well-being.

Project description:ImportanceDirect reports of the experiences of staff working in group homes for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or intellectual or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are rarely reported. Hearing from workers about their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic may inform future workforce and public policy.ObjectiveTo gather baseline data on worker experience with the perceived effects of COVID-19 on health and work in the pandemic prior to initiating an intervention to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and to measure differences in worker experience by gender, race, ethnicity, education, and resident population served (persons with SMI and/or IDD/DD).Design, setting, and participantsThis mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study was conducted using online then paper-based self-administration from May to September 2021 at the end of the first year of the pandemic. Staff working in 415 group homes that provided care within 6 Massachusetts organizations serving adults aged 18 years or older with SMI and/or ID/DD were surveyed. The eligible survey population included a census of staff who were currently employed in participating group homes during the study period. A total of 1468 staff completed or partially completed surveys. The overall survey response rate was 44% (range by organization, 20% to 52%).Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported experiential outcomes were measured in work, health, and vaccine completion. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explore experiences by gender, race, ethnicity, education, trust in experts and employers, and population served.ResultsThe study population included 1468 group home staff (864 [58.9%] women; 818 [55.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 98 [6.7%] Hispanic or Latino). A total of 331 (22.5%) group home staff members reported very serious perceived effects on health; 438 (29.8%) reported very serious perceived effects on mental health; 471 (32.1%) reported very serious perceived effects on health of family and friends; and 414 reported very serious perceived effects (28.2%) on access to health services, with statistically significant differences observed by race and ethnicity. Vaccine acceptance was higher among persons with higher educational attainment and trust in scientific expertise and lower among persons who self-reported as Black or Hispanic/Latino. A total of 392 (26.7%) respondents reported needing support for health needs, and 290 (19.8%) respondents reported needing support for loneliness or isolation.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, approximately one-third of group home workers reported serious personal health and access to health care barriers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Addressing unmet health needs and access to health and mental health services, including inequities and disparities by race, ethnicity, and education, should benefit staff health and safety, as well as that of the individuals with disabilities who rely on them for support and care.

Project description:BackgroundUniversal recommendation for antiretroviral drugs and their effectiveness has put forward the challenge of assuring a chronic and continued care approach to PLHIV (People Living with HIV), pressured by aging and multimorbidity. Integrated approaches are emerging which are more responsive to that reality. Studying those approaches, and their relation to the what of delivery arrangements and the how of implementation processes, may support future strategies to attain more effective organizational responses.MethodsWe reviewed empirical studies on either HIV, multimorbidity, or both. The studies were published between 2011 and 2020, describing integrated approaches, their design, implementation, and evaluation strategy. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods were included. Electronic databases reviewed cover PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. A narrative analysis was conducted on each study, and data extraction was accomplished according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy of health systems interventions.ResultsA total of 30 studies, reporting 22 different interventions, were analysed. In general, interventions were grounded and guided by models and frameworks, and focused on specific subpopulations, or priority groups at increased risk of poorer outcomes. Interventions mixed multiple integrated components. Delivery arrangements targeted more frequently clinical integration (n = 13), and care in proximity, community or online-telephone based (n = 15). Interventions reported investments in the role of users, through self-management support (n = 16), and in coordination, through multidisciplinary teams (n = 9) and continuity of care (n = 8). Implementation strategies targeted educational and training activities (n = 12), and less often, mechanisms of iterative improvement (n = 3). At the level of organizational design and governance, interventions mobilised users and communities through representation, at boards and committees, and through consultancy, along different phases of the design process (n = 11).ConclusionThe data advance important lessons and considerations to take steps forward from disease-focused care to integrated care at two critical levels: design and implementation. Multidisciplinary work, continuity of care, and meaningful engagement of users seem crucial to attain care that is comprehensive and more proximal, within or cross organizations, or sectors. Promising practices are advanced at the level of design, implementation, and evaluation, that set integration as a continued process of improvement and value professionals and users' knowledge as assets along those phases.Trial registrationPROSPERO number CRD42020194117.