METHODS: This study employed cross-sectional, self-reported survey methodology. We used the 6-item Kessler screening scale (K6) to assess psychological distress (cutoff score ≥ 13, range 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater psychological distress). Participants self-reported their perceptions of whether they had been bullied at work and how frequently this occurred. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted with ever bullying and never bullying as dichotomous categories.
RESULTS: There were a total of 5235 participants (62.3% female). Participant ages ranged from 18 to 85, mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD): 33.88 ± 8.83. A total of 2045 (39.1%) participants reported ever being bullied. Of these, 731 (14.0%) reported being subject to at least occasional bullying, while another 194 (3.7%) reported it as a common occurrence. Across all income strata, mean scores for psychological distress were significantly higher for ever bullied employees (M ± SD: 8.69 ± 4.83) compared to those never bullied (M ± SD: 5.75 ± 4.49). Regression analysis indicated significant associations (p
Methods: A multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted in 12 government hospitals accredited for housemanship training within the central zone of Malaysia. The study included a total of 1,074 house officers who had been working for at least 6 months in various housemanship rotations. The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) was used to examine workplace bullying.
Results: The 6-month prevalence of workplace bullying among study participants was 13%. Work-related bullying such as 'being ordered to do work below your level of competence', person-related bullying such as 'being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work', and physically intimidating bullying such as 'being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger' were commonly reported by study participants. Medical officers were reported to be the commonest perpetrators of negative actions at the workplace. Study participants who graduated from Eastern European medical schools (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27, 4.07) and worked in surgical-based rotation (AOR 1.83; 95% CI: 1.13, 2.97) had higher odds of bullying compared to those who graduated from local medical schools and worked in medical-based rotation, whereas study participants with good English proficiency (AOR 0.14; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.94) had lower odds of bullying compared to those with poor English proficiency.
Conclusion: The present study shows that workplace bullying is prevalent among Malaysian junior doctors. Considering the gravity of its consequences, impactful strategies should be developed and implemented promptly in order to tackle this serious occupational hazard.
METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer patients who were diagnosed at least 1 year prior to recruitment, and either had paid work, were self-employed, currently unemployed, or currently retired (N = 66).
RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) loss of income: While some participants were entitled for a 1-year cancer-specific sick leave, many other participants recounted having insufficient paid sick leave, forcing them to take prolonged unpaid leave to complete treatment; (2) dealing with side effects of cancer and its treatment: The need for workplace accommodations was highlighted including flexible working hours, lighter workloads, and dedicated rest areas to enable patients to cope better; (3) Discrimination and stigma at workplace: Some participants mentioned being passed over on a promotion, getting demoted, or being forced to resign once their cancer diagnosis was disclosed, highlighting an urgent need to destigmatize cancer in the workplace.
CONCLUSION: In settings with limited employment protection policies, a cancer diagnosis severely impacts the working experiences of patients, leading to financial loss. Urgent interventions and legislative reforms are needed in these settings to address the unmet employment needs of cancer survivors.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study may facilitate planning of local solutions to fulfill the unmet employment needs following cancer, such as return-to-work navigation services.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients with advanced CKD (stage 4 and 5 non-dialysis) treated in our centre. We interviewed those aged 18 to 60 years old who were selected based on random sampling of their employment status and associated factors. Work disabilities and quality of life were assessed using work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI-GH) questionnaire and kidney disease and quality of life (KDQOL-36) questionnaire. These questionnaires were assisted by the main investigators to aid participants in facilitating their response process.
RESULT: A total of 318 patients recruited, 53.5% were males, with a mean age of 49.0 ± 9.0 years old. The main cause of CKD was diabetes (67.0%) followed by hypertension (11.3%). Majority of them were obese (55.3%) with a mean body mass index of 28.81 ± 6.3 kg/m2. The mean household income was RM 4669.50 ± 3034.75 (USD1006.27 ± 653.99). The employment rate was 50% (n = 159). 86% of the unemployed patients were in B40 income category. Multiple Logistic Regression was performed on the significant factors affecting employment status showed one year increase in age increased 6.5% odds to be unemployed. Female and dyslipidaemia had 2.24- and 2.58-times higher odds respectively to be unemployed. Meanwhile, patients with tertiary level of education were 81% less odds to be unemployed. Patients with advanced CKD had a mean percentage of 24.35 ± 15.23 work impairment and 13.36 ± 32.34 mean percentages of face absenteeism due to the disease burden. Furthermore, patients who were unemployed had significant perceived symptoms and problem lists, effects, and burden of kidney disease (p<0.01) and showed poor mental and physical composites (p<0.01) as compared with those who were employed.
CONCLUSION: The employment rate of advanced CKD patients was low with half of patients lost their jobs due to the disease burden and had poor mental and physical composites of quality of life. This raises the concern for financial support for long term renal replacement therapy.
METHODS: Men from Dolakha, Nepal, who had ever migrated outside of Nepal for work were interviewed on their experiences, from predeparture to return (n=194). Forced labour was assessed among those who returned within the past 10 years (n=140) using the International Labour Organization's forced labour dimensions: (1) unfree recruitment; (2) work and life under duress; and (3) impossibility to leave employer. Forced labour is positive if any one of the dimensions is positive.
RESULTS: Participants had worked in India (34%), Malaysia (34%) and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (29%), working in factories (29%), as labourers/porters (15%) or in skilled employment (12%). Among more recent returnees (n=140), 44% experienced unfree recruitment, 71% work and life under duress and 14% impossibility to leave employer. Overall, 73% experienced forced labour during their most recent labour migration.Forced labour was more prevalent among those who had taken loans for their migration (PR 1.23) and slightly less prevalent among those who had migrated more than once (PR 0.87); however the proportion of those who experienced forced labour was still high (67%). Age, destination and duration of stay were associated with only certain dimensions of forced labour.
CONCLUSION: Forced labour experiences were common during recruitment and at destination. Migrant workers need better advice on assessing agencies and brokers, and on accessing services at destinations. As labour migration from Nepal is not likely to reduce in the near future, interventions and policies at both source and destinations need to better address the challenges migrants face so they can achieve safer outcomes.
METHODOLOGY: All the subjects who met the inclusion criteria were recruited for this comparative cross-sectional study, which was conducted from May to July 2020 in two hospitals in Kelantan, Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire, namely, the Malay-version Vicarious Traumatization Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey were utilized. A descriptive analysis, independent t-test, and analysis of covariance were performed using SPSS Statistics version 26.
RESULTS: A total of 160 frontline and 146 non-frontline healthcare providers were recruited. Vicarious traumatization was significantly higher among the non-frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 79.7 [75.12, 84.30]) compared to the frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 74.3 [68.26, 80.37]) after adjusting for sex, duration of employment, and social support.
CONCLUSION: The level of vicarious traumatization was higher among non-frontline compared to frontline healthcare providers. However, the level of severity may differ from person to person, depending on how they handle their physical, psychological, and mental health. Hence, support from various resources, such as colleagues, family, the general public, and the government, may play an essential role in the mental health of healthcare providers.