Individual psychological characteristics associated with wellbeing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Dec 25, 2022 206 likes •388 views

Individual psychological characteristics associated with wellbeing at work in mental health staff: a systematic review Dr Danielle Lamb Prof Sonia Johnson, Dr Bryn Lloyd-Evans, Dr Jo Lloyd Background 1/2 Organisational factors: e.g. ++working

SLIDE 1

Individual psychological characteristics associated with wellbeing at work in mental health staff: a systematic review

Dr Danielle Lamb

Prof Sonia Johnson, Dr Bryn Lloyd-Evans, Dr Jo Lloyd

SLIDE 2

Background 1/2

Organisational factors: e.g. ++working hours, lack of control, poor remuneration – associated with higher stress and burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2008) Individual factors: e.g. age, years of experience, gender, ethnicity – equivocal results (Keyko et al., 2016)

BUT hard for individuals to change these things

SLIDE 3

Other individual differences that account for differences in

wellbeing outcomes? Personality!

‘Personality’  mechanistic, problematic due to reification
Define ‘personality’:

“probabilistic descriptions of the frequency and intensity with which individuals exhibit various behavioural, motivational, emotional, and cognitive states” (DeYoung, 2010)

Functional contextualist account of personality – descriptive terms

to talk about patterns of behaviour, evolutionary context

Personality changes over time (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) and can

be deliberately changed by interventions (Roberts et al., 2017)

Background 2/2

SLIDE 4

Methods 1/4

Inclusion criteria

Participants – mental health workers
Setting – services for adults (18+)
Design – quantitative (or mixed methods with some quant.)
Predictor – psychological construct (e.g. ‘extraversion’;

‘psychological flexibility’)

Outcome – wellbeing outcome (e.g. ‘burnout’; ‘work

engagement’)

Language – English
Time period - Any

SLIDE 5

Databases:

Medline
PsycINFO
Embase
Social Policy and

Practice

CINAHL
PubMed
Cochrane
Web of Science

Methods 2/4

SLIDE 6

Search terms

1 Population “mental health staff” OR “mental health worker*” OR “mental health professional*” OR “mental health personnel” OR “mental health nurse*” OR “mental health workforce” OR “psychiatric staff” OR “psychiatric worker*” OR “psychiatric professional*” OR “psychiatric personnel” OR “psychiatric nurse*” OR “psychiatric workforce” 2 Outcome burnout OR “Burnout, Professional” (MeSH term) stress OR “Stress, Psychological” (MeSH term) anxiety OR depression OR burden OR strain OR “psychological load” cope OR copes OR coping wellbeing OR well-being 3 Study design correl* OR predict* OR associat* OR longitudinal OR cross- sectional OR “cross sectional” ((1 AND 2a) OR (1 AND 2b) OR (1 AND 2c) OR (1 AND 2d) OR (1 AND 2e)) AND 3

Methods 3/4

SLIDE 7

Data collection

Screening – title/abstract screening, short list, full paper

screening, final list

Second screening – additional reviewer screened 40

randomly selected included and excluded papers

Data extraction – using custom spreadsheet
Quality assessment – no definitive tool for observational

research, so two tools used, Loney et al. (2000) and Munn et al. (2014) in order to cover relevant issues

Analysis

Narrative synthesis (meta-analysis not possible due to

heterogenous nature of outcomes in included papers)

Methods 4/4

SLIDE 8

Results 1/5

PRISMA flow diagram

SLIDE 9

Design – all 44 cross-sectional
Paper type – 16 unpublished dissertations, 28

peer-reviewed journal articles

Time period – 10 pre-2000, 13 from 2000-3009, 21 from

2010 onwards

Location – 24 USA, 5 Australia, 4 UK, 4 Sweden, 2 Israel, 1

Germany, India, Japan, Pakistan, & South Africa

Setting – 10 community MH, 10 hospital, 12 mixed, 3 not-

for-profit, 2 MH training, 7 generic ‘mental health’ setting

Participants – 20 mixed MH staff, 13 psychiatric nurses, 3

counsellors, 2 psychologists, 3 social workers, 2 psychiatrists, 1 psychotherapists

Sample size – 6 had <50, 7 had 51-100, 17 had 101-200,

13 had 201-1000, 1 had >1000

Results 2/5

SLIDE 10

Predictor measures used:

9 used personality; 8 used mindfulness; 7 used

emotional intelligence; 6 used self-esteem Remaining constructs used in 3 or fewer papers – locus

f control, hardiness, resilience, empathy, sense of

coherence, optimism, gratitude, hope, self-efficacy, self-awareness, self-image, core self-evaluation, psychological flexibility Outcome measures used:

31 used burnout; 10 used stress; 6 used satisfaction

Remaining constructs used in 4 or fewer papers – general psychological health, wellbeing, depression, compassion fatigue/satisfaction, anxiety, professional fulfillment, secondary traumatic stress, trauma

Results 3/5

SLIDE 11

Quality of evidence

7 high quality; 35 moderate quality; 2 low quality

Grouping of studies

Traditional dispositional personality traits (e.g. Big Five)
Core self evaluations (e.g. self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional

stability, locus of control)

Positive psychology strengths (e.g. emotional intelligence,

gratitude, hope/optimism)

Mindfulness-based constructs (e.g. mindfulness, psych flex)

Results 4/5

SLIDE 12

Summary of evidence:

Results 5/5

Construct grouping Range of associations Range of variance Personality r=0.229 to r=0.79 (majority < 0.35) 3% to 59% (majority < 14%) Core self-evaluations r=0.26 to r=0.52 5% to 36% Strengths r=0.17 to r= 0.57 2% to 26% Mindfulness-based r=0.42 to r=0.55 12% to 24% E.g. Low neuroticism, high agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, self-esteem, emotional intelligence, hardiness, mindfulness, & psych flex associated with better wellbeing

SLIDE 13

Previous research

Similar findings to previous research in other areas – those with

higher levels of openness, agreeableness, self-esteem, emotional intelligence, mindfulness and lower levels of neuroticism have better wellbeing

(Alarcon et al., 2009; Bakker, Zee, Lewig, & Dollard, 2006; Brown & Ryan, 2003; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010; Törnroos et al., 2013)

Completeness & applicability of evidence

Increase in recent years of research of these constructs and their

association wellbeing

Range of settings, staff groups etc.
Quality of evidence moderate
Several unpublished dissertations, suggests no publication bias

in results reviewed

Discussion 1/2

SLIDE 14

Discussion 2/2

Limitations

Of review: broad inclusion criteria = heterogeneous

studies = meta-analysis

Of included studies:

1) Lack of conceptual clarity around wellbeing and psychological constructs (need to avoid reification) 2) Mechanisms of change unclear – included papers offer circular arguments. Reductionism to brain structure/neurotransmitters (e.g. ++dopamine = extraversion) inconsistent – simple mapping not supported

SLIDE 15

Mindfulness-based constructs have the most consistent

associations with wellbeing at work in mental health staff

We can give a functional contextualist account of

individual characteristics

Strong argument for using ACT interventions in workplace

wellbeing programmes

Future work needed on conceptual issues and

mechanisms of change

Conclusion

SLIDE 16