Display options
Cite
Bauer J, Groneberg DA. Physicians' working conditions in hospitals from the students' perspective (iCEPT-Study)-results of a web-based survey. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016;11:5doi: 10.1186/s12995-016-0094-9.
Bauer, J., & Groneberg, D. A. (2016). Physicians' working conditions in hospitals from the students' perspective (iCEPT-Study)-results of a web-based survey. Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0094-9
Bauer, Jan, and Groneberg, David A. "Physicians' working conditions in hospitals from the students' perspective (iCEPT-Study)-results of a web-based survey." Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) vol. 11 (2016): 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0094-9
Bauer J, Groneberg DA. Physicians' working conditions in hospitals from the students' perspective (iCEPT-Study)-results of a web-based survey. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016 Feb 19;11:5. doi: 10.1186/s12995-016-0094-9. eCollection 2016. PMID: 26900392; PMCID: PMC4759714.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016 Feb 19;11:5. doi: 10.1186/s12995-016-0094-9. eCollection 2016.

Physicians' working conditions in hospitals from the students' perspective (iCEPT-Study)-results of a web-based survey.

Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)

Jan Bauer, David A Groneberg

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

PMID: 26900392 PMCID: PMC4759714 DOI: 10.1186/s12995-016-0094-9

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical students undergo numerous clinical clerkships. On these occasions they are confronted with current working conditions in hospitals. Because of the many implications of the students' perceptions of these working conditions, it is important to assess those. Hereby the focus was put on the students' perception of their supervising physician.

METHODS: This study is a part of a prospective anonymized web-based survey (iCEPT-Study). The study was conducted in Germany among medical students after their clinical rotations. 1587 medical students took part in this study (63,0 % female and 37,0 % male). 11259 were invited to take part (response rate of 14,1 %). In this study a questionnaire was used which was based on the Effort-Reward-Imbalance (ERI) model and the Job-Demand-Control (JDC) model. A mathematical calculated ratio (ER- and JDC-Ratio; combined as 'ER/JDC-Ratio') was used to measure the students' perceptions of working conditions, namely distress (primary outcome). As a secondary outcome perceived job satisfaction was measured.

RESULTS: Distress was perceived by 67.4 % (95 %-CI: 65.1|69.7) of the students. 54.1 % (95 %-CI: 51.7|56.6) of polled students stated that their supervising physician seemed to be very satisfied with his job. Analysis of age distribution revealed that the proportion of students' who perceived their supervising physician as very satisfied with his job dropped from 72.5 % among under 20-year olds to 63.0 % among 20-24-year olds and was at 44.5 % among the over 30-year olds. Looking at the specialty, the specialty of surgery was rated with the highest distress prevalence (ER/JDC-Ratio > 1): 81.3 % of students stated that their supervising surgeon encountered unfavorable working conditions.

CONCLUSION: Two out of three medical students rated the physicians working conditions as stressful. This implicates that already in this early phase of their career the majority of medical students get to know the hospital as an unfavorable workplace concerning working conditions. To facilitate the transition from medical schools to hospitals working conditions of physicians must be improved.

Keywords: Distress; Hospital; Physician; Satisfaction; Student

References

  1. Fam Med. 2008 Jun;40(6):400-6 - PubMed
  2. Gesundheitswesen. 2012 Jul;74(7):426-34 - PubMed
  3. Emerg Med Australas. 2012 Dec;24(6):625-33 - PubMed
  4. J Occup Health Psychol. 1996 Jan;1(1):27-41 - PubMed
  5. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2012 Feb;55(2):245-53 - PubMed
  6. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jul;71(2):298-304 - PubMed
  7. Fam Med. 2012 Jan;44(1):7-13 - PubMed
  8. Zentralbl Chir. 2014 Jan 7;:null - PubMed
  9. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2011 Mar 31;6(1):10 - PubMed
  10. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Oct;85(7):819-28 - PubMed
  11. Health Serv Res. 2001 Feb;35(6):1347-55 - PubMed
  12. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008 Dec 05;3:32 - PubMed
  13. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Apr;56(4):294-300 - PubMed
  14. Acad Med. 1995 Jul;70(7):620-41 - PubMed
  15. Isr Med Assoc J. 2011 Aug;13(8):485-7 - PubMed
  16. Acad Med. 2010 Apr;85(4):605-13 - PubMed
  17. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2014 Feb 05;9(1):4 - PubMed
  18. J Appl Psychol. 1997 Apr;82(2):247-52 - PubMed
  19. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2011 Feb;136(6):253-7 - PubMed
  20. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Apr;58(8):1483-99 - PubMed
  21. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2013 Nov;138(47):2401-6 - PubMed
  22. BMC Fam Pract. 2011 May 09;12:25 - PubMed
  23. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013 Feb 26;8(1):3 - PubMed
  24. BMC Med Educ. 2008 Feb 26;8:10 - PubMed
  25. Anaesthesist. 2014 Jan;63(1):32-40 - PubMed
  26. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008 Apr 30;3:9 - PubMed
  27. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2012 Jun;137(23):1242-7 - PubMed
  28. Anaesthesist. 2011 Jun;60(6):517-24 - PubMed
  29. Internist (Berl). 2014 Oct;55(10):1242-50 - PubMed

Publication Types