More than half of primary care physicians report stressful working conditions

Abstract Background: Many problems with primary care physicians’ psychosocial working conditions have been documented. Many studies on working condition have used the Effort-Reward-Imbalance (ERI) model, which posits that poor health and well-being may result from imbalances between the level of effort employees perceive that they put into their work and the rewards they receive. The model has not been used in qualitative research or applied to investigate primary care physicians’ working conditions. The aim of this study was to apply the ERI model to explore the perceived efforts and rewards by primary care physicians in Sweden and approaches they take to cope with potential imbalances between these efforts and rewards.Methods: The study has a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to achieve a heterogeneous sample of primary care physicians who represented a broad spectrum of experiences and perceptions. We recruited 21 physicians; 15 were employed in public health care and 6 by private health care companies.Results: The analysis of the interviews yielded 11 sub-categories: 6 were mapped to the efforts category, 3 were attributed to the rewards category and 2 were approaches to coping with effort/reward imbalances. Many of the statements concerned efforts in the form of high workload, restricted autonomy and administrative work burden. They also perceived resource restrictions, unpredictability of work and high expectations in their role as physicians as efforts. Three reward factors emerged; the physicians found their job to be stimulating and meaningful, and the work climate to be supportive. The physicians coped with imbalances by means of job enrichment and using decisional latitude.Conclusions: This study of primary care physicians suggests a lack of reciprocity in terms of high costs and low gains, providing a plausible explanation for work stress and associated consequences that have been shown in previous primary care research. We found the ERI model to be useful to explore physicians’ primary care work and working conditions and to identify effort and reward factors as well as approaches to managing effort/reward imbalances of relevance for their job satisfaction.

Download Full-text

Working conditions in primary care: a qualitative interview study with physicians in Sweden informed by the Effort-Reward-Imbalance model

BMC Family Practice ◽

10.1186/s12875-021-01500-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Per Nilsen ◽

Hanna Fernemark ◽

Ida Seing ◽

Kristina Schildmeijer ◽

Carin Ericsson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Health Care ◽

Working Conditions ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

Well Being ◽

Qualitative Interview Study ◽

Effort Reward Imbalance ◽

Reward Imbalance ◽

Health And Well Being ◽

Eri Model

Abstract Background Many problems with primary care physicians’ psychosocial working conditions have been documented. Many studies on working condition have used the Effort-Reward-Imbalance (ERI) model, which posits that poor health and well-being may result from imbalances between the level of effort employees perceive that they put into their work and the rewards they receive. The model has not been used in qualitative research or applied to investigate primary care physicians’ working conditions. The aim of this study was to apply the ERI model to explore the perceived efforts and rewards by primary care physicians in Sweden and approaches they take to cope with potential imbalances between these efforts and rewards. Methods The study has a qualitative design, using semi-structured interviews. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to achieve a heterogeneous sample of primary care physicians who represented a broad spectrum of experiences and perceptions. We recruited 21 physicians; 15 were employed in public health care and 6 by private health care companies. Results The analysis of the interviews yielded 11 sub-categories: 6 were mapped to the efforts category, 3 were attributed to the rewards category and 2 were approaches to coping with effort/reward imbalances. Many of the statements concerned efforts in the form of high workload, restricted autonomy and administrative work burden. They also perceived resource restrictions, unpredictability of work and high expectations in their role as physicians as efforts. Three types of rewards emerged; the physicians found their job to be stimulating and meaningful, and the work climate to be supportive. The physicians coped with imbalances by means of job enrichment and using decisional latitude. Conclusions Primary care physicians perceive numerous types of efforts in their job, which is consistent with research concerning work stress and associated consequences, such as poor subjective health and well-being. There are also rewards according to primary care physicians, but the findings suggest a lack of reciprocity in terms of efforts and rewards although firm conclusions cannot be drawn since the study did not investigate the magnitude of the various efforts and rewards or the effectiveness of the approaches the physicians use to cope with imbalances. The ERI model was found to be useful to explore physicians’ primary care work and working conditions but its applicability likely depends on the type of work or professions being studied.

Download Full-text

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800002586 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 489-524

Author(s):

Brent Pollitt

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

American Psychological Association ◽

The United States ◽

Psychotropic Medications ◽

American Psychological ◽

Training Requirements ◽

Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Download Full-text