+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastung : Geeignete Analyseinstrumente für das Sozial- und Gesundheitswesen Translated title: Risk assessment for mental stress : Appropriate analytical tools for social and healthcare services


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Die Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastung hat zum Ziel, die durch die Arbeit verbundenen Gefährdungen zu beurteilen, um Maßnahmen zur gesundheitsgerechten Gestaltung der Arbeit abzuleiten. Allerdings ist das Angebot an Verfahren für die Ermittlung der psychischen Belastung umfangreich und unübersichtlich. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird für das Sozial- und Gesundheitswesen ein reduzierter und strukturierter Überblick an Instrumenten vorgestellt.


          Für die Identifizierung geeigneter Instrumente wurde eine umfangreiche Suche durchgeführt. Vor Recherchebeginn wurden Kriterien definiert, um die identifizierten Instrumente auf Eignung zu prüfen. Zum einen gab es Mindestanforderungen, die erfüllt sein mussten, damit das Instrument in den Review-Prozess aufgenommen wurde, und zum anderen Strukturierungskriterien, die sich in beschreibende und bewertende Aspekte unterteilten.


          Die Recherche identifizierte insgesamt 83 Instrumente für die Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastung (GBU Psyche); nach der ersten Sichtung wurden 58 von diesen zur weiteren Eignung im Review-Prozess übernommen. Abgeschlossen wurde das Gesamtreview bisher für 44 Verfahren aus der unsystematischen Suche. Davon wurden 19 Verfahren als geeignet eingestuft und in einer Übersichtsmatrix strukturiert dargestellt. Das Review für die 14 Verfahren aus der systematischen Recherche erfolgt voraussichtlich bis Mitte 2022 und ist Teil eines kontinuierlichen Review-Prozesses.


          Die Vielzahl an identifizierten Verfahren für die GBU Psyche (Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastung) zeigt deutlich die Sinnhaftigkeit und Relevanz, eine begrenzte, praxiserprobte sowie qualitätsgesicherte Auswahl an Instrumenten zu treffen. Die ebenfalls in diesem Artikel dargestellten Kriterien zur Bewertung der Instrumente, machen die getroffene Auswahl transparent.

          Translated abstract


          The aim of the risk assessment for mental stress is to evaluate the hazards associated with the work in order to derive measures for the healthy design of the work. The range of procedures for assessment of mental stress is, however, extensive and unclear. Against this background, this article presents a reduced and structured overview of instruments for social and healthcare services.


          A comprehensive search was carried out to identify appropriate tools. Prior to beginning the search, criteria were defined to test the suitability of the identified tools. For one thing, there are minimum requirements that must be fulfilled so that the tool is accepted for the review process. There are also structuring criteria that can be divided into descriptive and evaluative aspects.


          The search identified a total of 83 instruments for risk assessment of mental stress (GBU Psyche), of which 58 were accepted for a further suitability review process following initial evaluation. The comprehensive review of 44 services from the nonsystematic search has so far been completed. Of these, 19 procedures were deemed suitable and are presented in a structured overview matrix. The review of the 14 procedures from the systematic search is projected to be finished by mid-2022 and is part of the continual review process.


          The numerous procedures identified for risk assessment of mental stress clearly show that it is reasonable and relevant to find a limited selection of tools that have been tested in practice and are quality assured. The criteria for evaluating the tools, which are also presented in this article, render this selection transparent.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Subjective burden and perspectives of German healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

          Healthcare workers (HCW) face tremendous challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the subjective burden, views, and COVID-19 infection status of HCWs. The aim of this work was to evaluate the subjective burden, the perception of the information policies, and the agreement on structural measures in a large cohort of German HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. This country-wide anonymous online survey was carried out from April 15th until May 1st, 2020. 25 content-related questions regarding the subjective burden and other dimensions were evaluated. We evaluated different dimensions of subjective burden, stress, and perspectives using 5-point Likert-scale questions. Moreover, the individual COVID-19 infection status, the amount of people infected in circle of friends and acquaintances and the hours working overtime were assessed. A total of 3669 HCWs provided sufficient responses for analyses. 2.8% of HCWs reported to have been tested positive for COVID-19. Nurses reported in principle higher ratings on all questions of subjective burden and stress than doctors and other hospital staff. Doctors (3.6%) and nurses (3.1%) were more likely to be tested positive for COVID-19 than other hospital staff (0.6%, Chi(2) 2 = 17.39, p < 0.0005). HCWs who worked in a COVID-19 environment reported higher levels of subjective burden and stress compared to all other participants. Working in a COVID-19 environment increased the likelihood to be tested positive for COVID-19 (4.8% vs. 2.3%, Chi(1) 2 = 12.62, p < 0.0005) and the severity of the subjective burden. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses experience more stress than doctors. Overall, German HCWs showed high scores of agreement with the measures taken by the hospitals. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00406-020-01183-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Prevalence and Consequences of Aggression and Violence towards Nursing and Care Staff in Germany—A Survey

            Acts of aggression by patients or clients are a part of the average working day for many Health care employees. The objective of the survey was to study the frequency and nature of violence and the handling of aggressive behavior by facility management. The cross-sectional study was conducted in 2017, 81 different healthcare facilities and 1984 employees participated. The questionnaire encompassed socio-demographic details, the frequency of physical violence and verbal abuse, consequences of violence and the stress of employees. In the previous twelve months, 94.1% of the employees in the survey had experienced verbal abuse and 69.8% had experienced physical aggression. Acts of aggression were most commonly encountered in hospitals and residential facilities for the disabled. One third of the employees felt under high levels of stress as a result of the incidents. If the workplace prepares effectively, however, this reduces the perceived stress odds ratio (OR) 0.6, 95% CI 0.4–0.8). Violence and aggression are very common. Healthcare facilities are increasingly dealing with this topic. Awareness raising is likely to lead to higher incident reporting rates. Good preparation and an open approach to the topic in the facilities have a positive effect on the feeling of stress and work ability.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Consideration of psychosocial factors in workplace risk assessments: findings from a company survey in Germany

              Purpose Work-related psychosocial risks are an increasingly important issue in occupational safety and health (OSH) policy. In Germany, as in many other European countries, employers are legally required to carry out workplace risk assessments (WRAs) and to account for psychosocial factors when doing this. The aim of this study was to expand the still scarce and sketchy empirical evidence on the extent to which employers comply with these obligations, as well as on possible determinants of compliance behaviour. Methods Survey data from 6500 German companies were used to calculate the prevalence of workplace risk assessments that include psychosocial factors. Furthermore, multinomial logistic regressions were performed to explore which company characteristics influence the chance of psychosocial risk assessment occurrence. Results The prevalence of psychosocial risk assessments was 21%. Next to company size (OR = 5.7, 95% CI 3.0–11.0), availability of safety specialist assistance (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 2.6–4.6), availability of occupational health specialist assistance (OR = 3.4; 95% CI 2.6–4.4) and inspection by OSH authority (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.4–4.7) were the strongest predictors of psychosocial risk assessment occurrence. Smaller (but still significant) effect sizes were found for the level of knowledge about legal OSH requirements, training of managers in OSH, economic situation of the company, presence of a works council, positive view on the benefit of OSH, affiliation with the production sector and magnitude of psychosocial risks within the company. Conclusions The study results indicate large deficiencies in the implementation of psychosocial risk assessments, especially for small companies. Findings suggest that enhancing companies’ utilisation of professional OSH experts and strengthening the advisory and control capacities of the OSH inspection authorities in the area of psychosocial risks would be beneficial for improving the current situation.

                Author and article information

                Zentralbl Arbeitsmed Arbeitsschutz Ergon
                Zentralbl Arbeitsmed Arbeitsschutz Ergon
                Zentralblatt Fur Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz Und Ergonomie
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                26 November 2021
                26 November 2021
                : 1-9
                [1 ]GRID grid.491653.c, ISNI 0000 0001 0719 9225, Abteilung Arbeitsmedizin, Gefahrstoffe und Gesundheitswissenschaften, , Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege (BGW), ; Pappelallee 33/35/37, 22089 Hamburg, Deutschland
                [2 ]GRID grid.13648.38, ISNI 0000 0001 2180 3484, Institut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Competenzzentrum für Epidemiologie und Versorgungsforschung bei Pflegeberufen (CVcare), , Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, ; Hamburg, Deutschland
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden.

                Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.

                Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.

                Übersichten: Arbeitsmedizin

                personalbefragung,beobachtungsverfahren,gruppendiskussion,kriterienkatalog,auswahl,personel survey,observation procedures,group discussion,selection


                Comment on this article