A Private Sector Rapid Care Analysis toolkit (PS RCA) is a rapid process for businesses and workers to understand the heavy responsibility and long hours of unpaid care and domestic work (UCDW), usually done by women workers. The guide also makes the case for why private sector companies should address UCDW as part of workers’ rights and human rights, and it outlines the benefits to businesses of taking action. PS RCA discussions clarify how employment policies, workplace culture and practices may make unpaid care and domestic work more challenging for workers, with hidden costs for company operations. The PS RCA process helps identify opportunities for company action and builds commitment to change. The step-by-step guide is easy to follow for businesses, women’s rights and feminist organisations, civil society organisations, trade unions and other interested parties. The two accompanying webinars provide training and guidance for managers, champions and advocates on how to conduct a PS RCA (Webinar 1), and for facilitators on how to conduct the focus group exercises with workers (Webinar 2). This PS RCA Toolkit complements the original Participatory Methodology: Rapid Care Analysis that focuses on community and local government roles in addressing women’s heavy and unequal share of unpaid care and domestic work. The toolkit also complements broader gender equity audits and strategies for business. Get in touch: If you would like to make use of the toolkit, have any questions on the process; and/or would like a PowerPoint/ open version of the webinars, please contact policyandpractice@oxfam.org.uk’

Context: Many countries and institutions have adopted policies to promote healthier food and drink availability in various settings, including public sector workplaces. Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize evidence on barriers and facilitators to implementation of and compliance with healthy food and drink policies aimed at the general adult population in public sector workplaces. Data sources: Nine scientific databases, 9 grey literature sources, and government websites in key English-speaking countries along with reference lists. Data extraction: All identified records (N = 8559) were assessed for eligibility. Studies reporting on barriers and facilitators were included irrespective of study design and methods used but were excluded if they were published before 2000 or in a non-English language. Data analysis: Forty-one studies were eligible for inclusion, mainly from Australia, the United States, and Canada. The most common workplace settings were healthcare facilities, sports and recreation centers, and government agencies. Interviews and surveys were the predominant methods of data collection. Methodological aspects were assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Studies Checklist. Generally, there was poor reporting of data collection and analysis methods. Thematic synthesis identified 4 themes: (1) a ratified policy as the foundation of a successful implementation plan; (2) food providers' acceptance of implementation is rooted in positive stakeholder relationships, recognizing opportunities, and taking ownership; (3) creating customer demand for healthier options may relieve tension between policy objectives and business goals; and (4) food supply may limit the ability of food providers to implement the policy. Conclusions: Findings suggest that although vendors encounter challenges, there are also factors that support healthy food and drink policy implementation in public sector workplaces. Understanding barriers and facilitators to successful policy implementation will significantly benefit stakeholders interested or engaging in healthy food and drink policy development and implementation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021246340.

Home care is the preferred care option for most people who need support; yet abuse exists in these settings toward both home care workers and clients. There are no existing reviews that assess the scope of current research on abuse in home care, and tangentially related reviews are dated. For these reasons, a scoping review is warranted to map the current state of research on abuse in home care and examine current interventions in this field. Databases selected for searching were Medline and EMBASE on OVID, Scopus, and the following databases in EBSCOhost: Academic Search Complete, AgeLine, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Records were included if: (a) they were written in English; (b) the participants were home care workers or clients age 18 years or older; (c) they were published in journals; (d) they undertook empirical research; and (e) they were published within the last 10-year period. Following Graham et al. (2006), the 52 included articles are categorized as either knowledge inquiry or as intervention studies. We find three themes among knowledge inquiry studies: (1) prevalence and types of abuse in home care, (2) abuse in the context of living with dementia, and (3) working conditions and abuse. Analysis from the intervention studies suggest that not all organizations have specific policies and practices to prevent abuse, and no existing interventions to protect the well-being of clients were identified. Findings from this review can inform up-to-date practice and policymaking to improve the health and well-being of home care clients and workers.

BackgroundActive workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD = - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD = - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.ConclusionsMulticomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

Background: Sedentary time in workplaces has been linked to increased risks of chronic occupational diseases, obesity, and overall mortality. Currently, there is a burgeoning research interest in the implementation of multicomponent interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary time among office workers, which encompass a comprehensive amalgamation of individual, organizational, and environmental strategies. Objective: This meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions to mitigate occupational sedentary behavior at work compared with no intervention. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until March 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of multicomponent interventions on occupational sedentary behavior among office-based workers. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The average intervention effect on sedentary time was calculated using Stata 15.1. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether sit-stand workstation, feedback, and prompt elements played an important role in multicomponent interventions. Further, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 11 RCTs involving 1894 patients were included in the analysis. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias, 2 as unclear risk of bias, and 4 as high risk. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with no intervention, multicomponent interventions significantly reduced occupational sitting time (MD=-52.25 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.06 to -31.44; P<.001) and occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-32.63 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -51.93 to -13.33; P=.001) and increased occupational standing time (MD=44.30 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 23.11-65.48; P<.001), whereas no significant differences were found in occupational stepping time (P=.06). The results of subgroup analysis showed that compared with multicomponent interventions without installment of sit-stand workstations, multicomponent interventions with sit-stand workstation installment showed better effects for reducing occupational sitting time (MD=-71.95 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -92.94 to -51.15), increasing occupational standing time (MD=66.56 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 43.45-89.67), and reducing occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-47.05 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.66 to -20.43). The GRADE evidence summary showed that all 4 outcomes were rated as moderate certainty. Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions, particularly those incorporating sit-stand workstations for all participants, are effective at reducing workplace sedentary time. However, given their cost, further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of low-cost/no-cost multicomponent interventions.

Background: Work can be considered a source of living, well-being, and socioeconomic development. When the work environment negatively influences individuals, it may trigger emotional disturbances, behavioral problems, chronic stress conditions, and illnesses such as burnout syndrome (BS). Recently, studies on BS have increased and placed a special focus on health care professionals. The prevalence of BS among health professionals is associated with their chronic exposure to human hardship and long working hours without proper rest. These factors have contributed to greater stress and high physical and emotional exhaustion levels. Objective: This study aims to identify and map studies using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scale to identify burnout syndrome in health professionals working in public health services. Methods: This scoping review was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers Manual and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). A total of 6 databases were searched to identify relevant studies: Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE or PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Gray literature was consulted on ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google Scholar, Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Additionally, the reference lists were searched to retrieve studies not previously selected. The steps followed in this study were proposed by Arskey and O'Malley and Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien: identification of research questions, identification of potential studies, study selection, data extraction and imputation, data analyses and interpretation, and consultation with stakeholders. The detailed methodology was published in a protocol. Results: A total of 55 articles were identified after screening for eligibility criteria, published between 1999 and 2021 in 32 countries. Most reports were published in Brazil, Spain, and China. A total of 22 versions of the MBI were identified, presenting different items, scores, and cutoff points. The included studies had recommendations and implications for clinical practice. The consultation with stakeholders allowed knowledge translation for those interested in BS. Conclusions: Studies mostly included physicians (34/55, 61.8%) and nurses (24/55, 43.6%), and the original version of MBI was predominantly used. Divergences in BS classification were highlighted, which may be related to MBI cross-cultural adaptations and applications in other countries. This study contributes to the advancement of research regarding burnout syndrome as an occupational illness since it has harmful consequences for workers, health care services, and the quality of care provided to the population.

Background: Work can be considered a source of living, well-being, and socioeconomic development. When the work environment negatively influences individuals, it may trigger emotional disturbances, behavioral problems, chronic stress conditions, and illnesses such as burnout syndrome (BS). Recently, studies on BS have increased and placed a special focus on health care professionals. The prevalence of BS among health professionals is associated with their chronic exposure to human hardship and long working hours without proper rest. These factors have contributed to greater stress and high physical and emotional exhaustion levels. Objective: This study aims to identify and map studies using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scale to identify burnout syndrome in health professionals working in public health services. Methods: This scoping review was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers Manual and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). A total of 6 databases were searched to identify relevant studies: Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE or PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Gray literature was consulted on ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google Scholar, Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Additionally, the reference lists were searched to retrieve studies not previously selected. The steps followed in this study were proposed by Arskey and O'Malley and Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien: identification of research questions, identification of potential studies, study selection, data extraction and imputation, data analyses and interpretation, and consultation with stakeholders. The detailed methodology was published in a protocol.Results: A total of 55 articles were identified after screening for eligibility criteria, published between 1999 and 2021 in 32 countries. Most reports were published in Brazil, Spain, and China. A total of 22 versions of the MBI were identified, presenting different items, scores, and cutoff points. The included studies had recommendations and implications for clinical practice. The consultation with stakeholders allowed knowledge translation for those interested in BS.Conclusions: Studies mostly included physicians (34/55, 61.8%) and nurses (24/55, 43.6%), and the original version of MBI was predominantly used. Divergences in BS classification were highlighted, which may be related to MBI cross-cultural adaptations and applications in other countries. This study contributes to the advancement of research regarding burnout syndrome as an occupational illness since it has harmful consequences for workers, health care services, and the quality of care provided to the population.

Patient and visitor violence (PVV) is a complex occupational hazard for health care staff working in general hospitals. In order to reduce the deficit of information regarding this kind of PVV, a systematic literature review that describes and summarizes the current scientific knowledge on this topic was conducted. The literature search identified 84 studies. These were analyzed for research quality and those with good or moderate research quality were selected (n=31). In most studies, a retrospective self reported cross-sectional design and a broad definition of violence were employed. Additionally, most of the questionnaires applied were developed by the researchers and utilized different retrospective time frames. Unfortunately, information about the validity of the questionnaires was often lacking. Results of this review suggest that PVV is a serious problem for health care staff in general hospitals, especially those working in medical and surgical units. Workplace characteristics and the interaction between patients and staff are important contextual factors that can contribute to the development of violent incidents. Because the studies reviewed employed different methodologies, instruments, and definitions, comparison was difficult. We, therefore, recommend that future research use clearer conceptual frameworks and unique instruments. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.