Open Access

Perception of stress-related working conditions in hospitals (iCept-study): acomparison between physicians and medical students

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology20138:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-8-3

Received: 8 November 2012

Accepted: 21 February 2013

Published: 26 February 2013

Abstract

Background

The students’ perception of working conditions in hospitalshasn’t been subject of research in Germany so far. However theperception plays an important role talking about the sustainability ofworking conditions. The iCept Study wants to examine the perception ofmedical students compared to the perception of practicing physicians.

Methods/design

The perception will be investigated with a redesigned questionnaire basedupon two established and validated questionnaires. The two samples built forthis study (students and physician) will be chosen from members of the laborunion Marburger Bund. The iCept-Study is designed as an anonymizedonline-survey.

Discussion

The iCept-Study is thought to be the basis of ongoing further investigationsregarding the perception of working conditions in hospitals. The resultsshall serve the facilitation of improving working conditions.

Keywords

Perception Stress Working conditions Hospital Student

Background

There are three crucial aspects concerning working conditions in the context of theirsustainability and their influence on medical students: First, the physicians, whoset the students an example of current working conditions. Second, the studentscorresponding perception of the working conditions. Third, the resulting needs andexpectations of medical students about their future working conditions. The firstand the latter aspect has been subject of many research studies [15]. However, the second one as a link between the current and to-beanalysis, hasn’t been a subject of scientific research in Germany so far. TheiCept-Study wants to examine the students’ perception of working conditions,answering the following pivotal questions:
  1. 1.

    How do medical students perceive stress-related working conditions of their supervising physicians?

     
  2. 2.

    Is the perception realistic?

     
  3. 3.

    Are there differences in the perception regarding age, specialty or state?

     

Generally speaking, the perception of working conditions depends on the directobservation of physicians at work and on the informal information from the peergroup or the media who is influencing the perception of medical students [69].

Whether the perception is congruent with reality cannot be answered with currentdata. Knowing that the perception has a major impact on the specialty choice ofmedical students makes the importance even more evident [6]. Furthermore there is an upcoming shortage of qualified employees inGerman hospitals: The “Deutsches Krankenhausinstitut” (DKI) assumes afurther requirement of 37.370 physicians until 2019 [10]. In cooperation with PricewaterhouseCoopers the institute for economicresearch (WifOR) estimated an additional need of 56.000 physicians until 2020 and106.000 until 2030 [11, 12]. The “Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung” and the“Bundesärztekammer” quantified the need to an extend to 71.625missing physician until 2020 [13]. These data suggest a threatening shortage of qualified medical employeesand thus an urgent need for motivated medical students, willing to work inhospitals.

In this study, two stress models were used for determining stress-related workingconditions.
  1. 1.

    The job-demand-control (JDC) model of Karasek et al.: In this theoretic model two parameters are confronted. On the one side the “job demand” and on the other side the “control” in terms of scope of action respectively scope for decision-making. Karasek et al. postulate that an imbalance between too high “job demand” and too little “control” (JDC-ratio > 1) results in “mental strain” [14, 15]. A current survey from 2012 interviewed medical employees in hospitals and proved the importance of the JDC model regarding the development of stress-related symptoms [16].

     
  2. 2.

    The effort-reward-imbalance (ERI) model of Siegrist et al.: This model postulates an imbalance between the “effort” at work and the corresponding “reward” as an intrinsic stress factor with all its negative psychological and physical manifestations. The negative consequences develop from domination of the “effort” in relation to the “reward” (ER-ratio > 1). There are three different types of “reward”: money, respect/acknowledgment and career advancement [17]. A 2006 published meta-analysis showed that high job demands, lack of social support, job insecurity and low appreciation raised the incidence rate of mental illnesses [18].

     

In the iCept-Study both models are combined, since thereby both extrinsic(JDC) and intrinsic (ERI) stress factors are taken into account. The importance ofboth models on the well being of employees was shown in a study that examined theirinfluence on the incident rate of myocardial infarction [19].

Methods

The iCept-Study is designed as an anonymized online-survey. Therefore the study isorientated towards the “international codex of market and socialresearch” and, because it will be administered in Germany, towards therespective declaration for the federal republic of Germany [20, 21]. Furthermore the “standards for quality assurance ofonline-surveys” will be taken into account [22]. The necessary scientific standards of quality can be found in the“Norm DIN ISO 20252:2006; Markt-, Meinungs- und Sozialforschung –Vokabular und Anforderungen”.

Sample

In this Study two samples will be recruited: physicians and medical students. Thesample of physicians will be used as the control-group, the medical students asthe experimental-group. Both samples will be chosen randomly from the members ofthe Marburger Bund, a professional organization and labor union of employedphysicians. On the cut-off date, the July 1st 2012, the MarburgerBund had 83.123 physicians and 19.223 medical students as members. The memberswill be contacted through e-mail in a standardized form, which will bedistributed with the kind support of the Marburger Bund. The e-mail will containa personalized link to the iCept-Study. In addition, Marburger Bund internalmedia like the “MB-Newsletter” or the “Marburger Bund Zeitung(MBZ)” will be used. This inclusion criterion is out of date and will notbe used in this study, since medical students DO have relevant clinicalinternships in the younger semesters.

ICept questionnaire

The iCept Questionnaire is built to assess mainly the above-mentioned twotheoretic stress models (JDC and ERI). For that purpose the questionnaire isbased upon the short questionnaire for work place analysis (KFZA) ofPrümper et al. [23] and the questionnaire for the effort-reward-imbalance (ERI) ofSiegrist et al. [24].

The KFZA is an established and validated questionnaire since 1995 and has beenused in many studies especially in hospitals [2527]. Moreover it is listed by the federal institute of work safety andoccupational medicine (BAuA) as a universal screening method with satisfyingquality criteria [28]. The KFZA is also the basis for the “IMPULS-Test” ofMolnar et al. and other questionnaires [2931]. It consists of 26 items and 11 scales.

The effort-reward-imbalance questionnaire (ERI-questionnaire) by Siegrist et al.has been developed in 2004 to assess the identical stressor (ERI). The qualitycriteria are satisfying (Crohnbach’s α > 0,7). The answer formatis a 5-point Likert scale, whereas current data suggest a 4-point Likert scaleto be more suitable [24, 32]. The questionnaire exists in a long (26 items) and a short (16 items)version [32, 33]. The short version has been used in many different studies [34, 35] and is also listed by the federal institute of work safety andoccupational medicine (BAuA) as a screening method with satisfying qualitycriteria [36].

Developing the iCept questionnaire, the items of KFZA and ERI-questionnaire havebeen reviewed for practicability at the clinical workplace. Also the items mustbe answerable for medical students from their point of view. Only items andscales fulfilling these criteria were used. The kind approval from Prof. JochenSiegrist (ERI-questionnaire) and Prof. Andrea Abele-Brehm (adapted KFZA) to usetheir questionnaires in this study has been obtained.

The stressors defined by the JDC are covered by the KFZA: the “jobdemand” is measured through the scales “suitably demandingwork” (QL1/QL2) and “suitable volume of work” (QN1/QN2); the“control” is assessed through the scale “scope foraction” (HS4-HS6) [37]. In addition, the scales “cooperation” (ZU2/ZU3) and“social support” (SR1-SR3) are taken from the KFZA. The itemsHS4-HS6 and an additional scale, “social climate” (SK1, SK2), havebeen taken from the adapted version of KFZA by Abele [31].

There is a slight correlation of both, ERI and KFZA questionnaires, regarding thescales “job demands” and “effort”. Different studiesshowed a correlation between the scales from r=0,3 to r=0,6 [38, 39]. Thus the scale “effort” is measured by items of bothquestionnaires (ERI2/ERI5 and QN1/QN2). Also the scale “reward” ismeasured by both questionnaires (ERI7/ERI8/ERI10 and SR1/SR2).

The overall job satisfaction is measured by a single item (JS1) from the“Job Diagnostic Survey” (JDS) of Schmidt et al. [40] That a single item can be used to measure the job satisfaction hasbeen shown in a meta-analysis, postulating a correlation of r=0,67 between“single-item measures” and “scale measures” regardingjob satisfaction [41].

The sociodemographic data are assessed according to the “demographicstandards” of the federal institution of statistics [42]. The following data will be collected:

  • EM1: Gender

  • EM2: Age

  • EM3: Specialty

  • EM4: State

  • EM5: Semester (only students)

  • EM6: Position (only physician)

Figure 1 shows all items with their target parameter.
Figure 1

Allocation of iCept-items to target parameter.

There will be two slightly different questionnaires administered: one for medicalstudents and one for physicians. The items of both versions only differgrammatically but not content wise or semantically: The items for thephysicians’ version will be written in the first-person singular, whereasthe version for students will be in the third-person singular. So there is nochange to any substantial degree. The items will be answered on a 4-point Likertscale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). The complete iCeptquestionnaire contains 20 items and 5 more sociodemographic items (seeTable  1) and will take about 5–10 min ofthe participants’ time.
Table 1

iCept-questionnaire for medical students

Item code

Item

HS4

The physician can determine the sequence of his worksteps.

HS5

The physician has much influence as to which task isallocated to him.

HS6

The physician is free to plan and classify his taskindependently.

SR1

The physician can rely on his colleagues when work becomesdifficult.

SR2

The physician can rely on his immediate superior when workbecomes difficult.

SR3

The team spirit is good in the department.

ZU2

The physician can talk to other colleagues during work aboutofficial and personal matters.

ZU3

The physician always gets a feedback from superiors andcolleagues on the quality of his work.

QL1

The work involves things that are too complicated

QL2

The demands made on the physicians’ concentration aretoo high.

QN1

The physician is often under time pressure

QN2

The physician has too much work

SK1

At the physicians’ workplace, there is a strongcompetition.

SK2

The social climate at the physicians’ workplace isburdensome.

ERI2

The physician has many interruptions and disturbances whileperforming his job.

ERI5

The physicians’ job is physically demanding.

ERI7

The physician receives the respect he deserves from hissuperiors.

ERI8

The physician receives the respect he deserves from hiscolleagues.

ERI10

The physician is treated unfairly at work.

JS1

Generally speaking, the physician is very satisfied with hisjob.

 

Sociodemographic data

EM1

Gender

EM2

Age

EM3

Specialty

EM4

State

EM5

Semester

In order to keep the influence of the peer group or the media on thestudents’ perception as low as possible, the students will be asked onlyto rate the latest clinical internship.

The survey will be generated with the web based online survey tool“2ask” from the amundis communications GmbH. The Leibniz institutefor social science recommends this tool [43].

Statistical data analysis

The statistical data analysis will be performed with SPSS Statistics. As Figure1 shows, the scales “effort” and“job demand” are measured by 4 items, the scale “reward”by 5 items and the scale “control” by 3 items. Considering the4-point Likert scale, the scale sum scores varies:

  • Scale sum score “effort” (xeff):4≤ xeff ≥ 16

  • Scale sum score “job demand” (xjob):4≤ xjob ≥ 16

  • Scale sum score “reward” (xrew):5≤ xrew ≥ 20

  • Scale sum score “control” (xcon):3≤ xcon ≥ 12

In order to draw first conclusions about the stressors ERI and JDC the ratiobetween the respective scale sum scores are calculated (ER-ratio and JDC-ratio).To adjust the unequal number of items a correction factor, based on the numberof items, is used (ceri=1,25 for the scale “effort” andcjdc= 0,75 for the scale “job demand”).
ER Ratio = x eff x rew × c eri JDC Ratio = x job x con × c jdc

Values > 1 of the ER/JDC-ratio indicate stress with possible adverse healtheffects [24, 44].

Besides this relative component, indicating an imbalance between the scales, theabsolute component will also be calculated, indicating possible eustress. Forthis purpose the sum scale scores of “effort” and“reward” respectively “job demand” and“control” will be summed up (ER-Sum, JDC-Sum).
ER Sum = x eff 4 + x rew 5 JDC Sum = x job 4 + x con 3 .

For the analysis values > 5 (as a sufficient condition) and an ER/JDC-ratio =1 (as a necessary condition) will be taken as an indicator for healthy stress(eustress).

Seven items (ZU1/ZU2, SK1/SK2, SR1-SR3) reflect the psychosocial aspect of stressand will be analyzed separately as well as the “overall jobsatisfaction” item (JS1).

Discussion

The iCept-Study is thought to be the basis of ongoing further investigationsregarding the perception of working conditions in hospitals. The results shall servethe facilitation of improving working conditions. Especially the rough transitionfrom medical school to the first job in a hospital makes it very important to knowthe students’ perception in order to smooth that transition. Anotherimplication the perception of working conditions has, is the influence on thestudents’ specialty choice. This hasn’t been a subject of research inGermany so far and therefor could be considered as a future subject in theiCept-Study.

Abbreviations

DKI: 

Deutsches krankenhausinstitut

WifOR: 

Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitut

JDC: 

Job-demand-control

ERI: 

Effort-reward-imbalance

MB: 

Marburger bund

MBZ: 

Marburgerbund zeitung

KFZA: 

Kurz-fragebogen zur arbeitsanalyse

BAuA: 

Bundesanstalt fürarbeitschutz und arbeitsmedizin.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the “Marburger Bund” and the“Bundesärztekammer”.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Goethe-University

References

  1. Schmidt CE, Möller J, Schmidt K, Gerbershagen MU, Wappler F, Limmroth V, Padosch SA, Bauer M: Generation Y: recruitment, retention and development. Der Anaesthesist 2011, 60: 517–524. 10.1007/s00101-011-1886-zView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gedrose B, Wonneberger C, Jünger J, Robra BP, Schmidt A, Stosch C, Wagner R, Scherer M, Pöge K, Rothe K, van den Bussche H: Do female medical graduates have different views on professional work andworkload compared to their male colleagues? Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift 2012, 137: 1242–1247.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Götz K, Miksch A, Hermann K, Loh A, Kiolbassa K, Joos S, Steinhäuser J: Aspirations of medical students: “planning for a secure career” -results of an online-survey among students at five medical schools inGermany. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) 2011, 136: 253–257. 10.1055/s-0031-1272520View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Heinz A, Jacob R: Medical students and their career choices. Preferred specialty, where and howto work. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2012, 55: 245–253. 10.1007/s00103-011-1413-zView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Buxel H: Motivation, Arbeitsplatzzufriedenheit und Jobwahlverhalten vonAssistenzärztinnen und -ärzten sowie Studierenden derHumanmedizin: Ergebnisse zweier empirischer Untersuchungen und Implikationenfür das Personalmanagement und -marketing von Krankenhäuser. Münster 2009, 49: 1–109.Google Scholar
  6. Bland CJ, Meurer LN, Maldonado G: Determinants of primary care specialty choice: a Non-statisticalmeta-analysis of the literature. Acad Med 1995, 70: 620–641. 10.1097/00001888-199507000-00013View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Holmes D, Tumiel-Berhalter L, Zayas L, Watkins R: “Bashing” of medical specialties: students’ experiences andrecommendations. Fam Med 2008, 40: 400–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jerant A, Srinivasan M, Bertakis KD: Attributes affecting the medical school primary care experience. Acad Med 2010, 85: 605–613. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d29af7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Phillips J, Weismantel D, Gold K, Schwenk T: How do medical students view the work life of primary care and specialtyphysicians? Fam Med 2012, 44: 7–13.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blum K, Löffert S: Ärztemangel im Krankenhaus - Ausmaß, Ursachen,Gegenmaßnahmen. Düsseldorf 2010, 1-–142.Google Scholar
  11. Ostwald DA, Ehrhard T, Bruntsch F, Schmidt H, Friedl C: Fachkräftemangel: Stationärer und ambulanter Bereich bis zum Jahr2030. Frankfurt am Main: ; 2010:80.Google Scholar
  12. PricewaterhouseCoopers: 112 - und niemand hilft. Frankfurt am Main: ; 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Kopetsch T: Studie zur Altersstruktur- und Arztzahlentwicklung: Dem deutschenGesundheitswesen gehen die Ärzte aus! 5. Berlin: Aktualisierte und komplett überarbeitete Auflage; 2010:146.Google Scholar
  14. Karasek RA: Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for jobredesign. Adm Sci Q 1979, 24: 285–308. 10.2307/2392498View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Karasek RA, Theorell T: Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of WorkingLife. New York: New York Basic Books; 1990.Google Scholar
  16. Tsai Y-C, Liu C-H: Factors and symptoms associated with work stress and health-promotinglifestyles among hospital staff: a pilot study in Taiwan. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12: 199. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-199PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Siegrist J: Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1996, 1(1):27–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Stansfeld S, Candy B: Psychosocial work environment and mental health—a meta-analyticreview. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006, 32: 443–462. 10.5271/sjweh.1050View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Peter R, Siegrist J, Hallqvist J, Reuterwall C, Theorell T: Psychosocial work environment and myocardial infarction: improving riskestimation by combining two complementary job stress models in the SHEEPStudy. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56: 294–300. 10.1136/jech.56.4.294PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Internationale Handelskammer (ICC), European Society for Opinion andMarket Research (ESOMAR): ICC/ESOMAR Internationalen Kodex für die Markt- undSozialforschung. : Frankfurt am Main; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Scheffler H, Dittrich W, Meulemann H, Wenzel O: Erklärung für das Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zumICC/ESOMAR Internationalen Kodex für die Markt- undSozialforschung. 2008, 0–2.Google Scholar
  22. Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e.V.,Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute e.V.,Berufsverband Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforscher e.V., DeutscheGesellschaft für Online-Forschung e.V: Standards zur Qualitätssicherung für Online-Befragungen. Frankfurt am Main: ADM e.V.: ; 2001:1–8.Google Scholar
  23. Prümper J, Hartmannsgruber K, Frese M: KFZA. Kurz-Fragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie 1995, 39(N. F):125–132.Google Scholar
  24. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, Peter R: The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58: 1483–1499. 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00351-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Buddeberg-Fischer B, Klaghofer R, Buddeberg C: Die Motivation zur Weiterbildung in Psychiatrie und Die Motivation zurWeiterbildung in Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie: eine Untersuchung beijungen Ärztinnen und Ärzten in der Deutschschweiz 1. Schweizer Archiv für Neurologie und Psychatrie 2008, 159: 34–41.Google Scholar
  26. Ehlbeck I, Lohmann A: Jochen Prümper: Arbeit in Krankenhäusern human gestalten. Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung; 2008:1–30.Google Scholar
  27. Eichert H-C: Supervision und ressourcenentwicklung: eine untersuchung zur supervision inder stätionären psychiatrie. SUPERVISION: Theorie-Praxis-Forschung 2008, 8: 1–369.Google Scholar
  28. KFZA: Kurz-Fragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse. http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Handlungshilfen-und-Praxisbeispiele/Toolbox/Verfahren/KFZA.html
  29. Molnar M, Geißler-Gruber B, Haiden C: IMPULS-Broschüre und IMPULS-Test: Betriebliche Analyse derArbeitsbedingungen. 11. erweit. Wien: Gefördert von der Europäischen Agentur fürSicherheit und Gesundheitsschutz am Arbeitsplatz; 2002.Google Scholar
  30. IMPULS: IMPULS-Test (Betriebliche Analyse der Arbeitsbedingungen. http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Handlungshilfen-und-Praxisbeispiele/Toolbox/Verfahren/IMPULS.html;jsessionid=CFC79498841E762950355650A3EC428B.1_cid253
  31. Abele AE, Stief M, Heismann C, Spurk D: Berufliche Laufbahnentwicklung von Akademikerinnen und Akademikern derUniversität Erlangen-Nürnberg (BELA-E): Dritte Erhebung derprospektiven Längsschnittstudie Fragebogen und Grundauswertung. Erlangen 2006, 45: 28–29.Google Scholar
  32. Siegrist J, Wege N, Pühlhofer F, Wahrendorf M: A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization:effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2009, 82: 1005–1013. 10.1007/s00420-008-0384-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Leineweber C, Wege N, Westerlund H, Theorell T, Wahrendorf M, Siegrist J: How valid is a short measure of effort-reward imbalance at work? areplication study from sweden. Occup Environ Med 2010, 67: 526–531. 10.1136/oem.2009.050930View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Voltmer E, Rosta J, Siegrist J, Aasland OG: Job stress and job satisfaction of physicians in private practice: comparisonof German and Norwegian physicians. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2012, 85: 819–828. 10.1007/s00420-011-0725-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Siegrist J, Shackelton R, Link C, Marceau L, von dem Knesebeck O, McKinlay J: Work stress of primary care physicians in the US, UK and German health caresystems. Soc Sci Med 2010, 71: 298–304. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.043PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. ERI: Effort-Reward Imbalance. http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Handlungshilfen-und-Praxisbeispiele/Toolbox/Verfahren/ERI.html;jsessionid=8B3588158E8510D971AB46153EE2FF1C.1_cid246
  37. Prümper J, Thewes K, Becker M: The Effect of Job Control and Quantitative Workload on the differentDimensions of the Work Ability Index. In Age Management during the Life Course. Edited by: Nygård C-H, Savanainen M, Kirsi T, Lumme-Sandt K. Tampere: Tampere University Press; 2011:102–106.Google Scholar
  38. Calnan M, Wainwright D, Almond S: Job strain, effort reward and mental distress: a study of generalpractice. Work and Stress 2001, 14: 297–311.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsutsumi A, Kayaba K, Theorell T, Siegrist J: Association between job stress and depression among Japanese employeesthreatened by job loss in comparison between two complementary job-stressmodels. Scand J Work Environ Health 2001, 27: 146–153. 10.5271/sjweh.602View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt K-H, Kleinbeck U: Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS - deutsche Fassung). In Handbuch psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren. SchriftenreiheMensch-Technik-Organisation. Band 14. Edited by: Dunkel H, Ulich E. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG; 1999:205–230.Google Scholar
  41. Wanous JP, Reichers EA, Hudy MJ: Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? J Appl Psychol 1997, 82: 247–252.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Heckel C, Glemser A, Heyde C, von der Heyde C, Quitt H, Hanefeld U, Herter-Eschweiler R, Mohr S: Statistik und Wissenschaft: Demographische Standards (Band 17). Wiesbaden: Band 17; 2010.Google Scholar
  43. Fortgeschrittenen-Software für Online-Umfragen. http://www.gesis.org/unser-angebot/studien-planen/online-umfragen/software-fuer-online-befragungen/fortgeschrittene/
  44. Hämmig O, Brauchli R, Bauer GF: Effort-reward and work-life imbalance, general stress and burnout amongemployees of a large public hospital in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2012, 142: w13577.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Bauer and Groneberg; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited.

Advertisement