Mobile Health Requirements for the Occupational Health Assessment of Health Care Professionals: Delphi Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In recent years, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, awareness of the high level of stress among health care professionals has increased, and research in this area has intensified. Hospital staff members have historically been known to work in an environment involving high emotional demands, time pressure, and workload. Furthermore, the pandemic has increased the strain experienced by health care professionals owing to the high number of people they need to manage and, on many occasions, the limited available resources with which they must carry out their functions. These psychosocial risks are not always well dealt with by the organization or the professionals themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to have tools to assess these psychosocial risks and to optimize the management of this demand from health care professionals. Digital health, and more specifically, mobile health (mHealth), is presented as a health care modality that can contribute greatly to respond to these unmet needs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze whether mHealth tools can provide value for the study and management of psychosocial risks in health care professionals, and assess the requirements of these tools. METHODS: A Delphi study was carried out to determine the opinions of experts on the relevance of using mHealth tools to evaluate physiological indicators and psychosocial factors in order to assess occupational health, and specifically, stress and burnout, in health care professionals. The study included 58 experts with knowledge and experience in occupational risk prevention, psychosocial work, and health-related technology, as well as health professionals from private and public sectors. RESULTS: Our data suggested that there is still controversy about the roles that organizations play in occupational risk prevention in general and psychosocial risks in particular. An adequate assessment of the stress levels and psychosocial factors can help improve employees' well-being. Moreover, making occupational health evaluations available to the team would positively affect employees by increasing their feelings of being taken into account by the organization. This assessment can be improved with mHealth tools that identify and quickly highlight the difficulties or problems that occur among staff and work teams. However, to achieve good adherence and participation in occupational health and safety evaluations, experts consider that it is essential to ensure the privacy of professionals and to develop feelings of being supported by their supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: For years, mHealth has been used mainly to propose intervention programs to improve occupational health. Our research highlights the usefulness of these tools for evaluating psychosocial risks in a preliminary and essential phase of approaches to improve the health and well-being of professionals in health care settings. The most urgent requirements these tools must meet are those aimed at protecting the confidentiality and privacy of measurements.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,049 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».