Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026
Workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination among UK occupational health practitioners.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lalloo D, Chavda S, Vargas-Prada S, Walker S H, Lalloo-McGurk D, Macdonald E B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Within UK occupational health (OH) practice, unlike the National Health Service, there is an absence of research on workplace bullying, harassment or abuse (BHA) and discrimination.
AIMS: To investigate the prevalence of workplace BHA and discrimination among UK OH practitioners and to identify any differences on the basis of certain personal or work-related characteristics.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted by the administration of a developed questionnaire by key UK OH organisations to their respective memberships. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise study population characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess associations between certain personal or work-related characteristics and experiences of (i) BHA and (ii) discrimination at work.
RESULTS: Among the 367 OH respondents (response rate = 11%), of which 245 (67%) were OH physicians, 110 (30%) OH nurses/advisors and 12 (3%) other OH practitioners, a substantial proportion (75%) had experienced BHA and 40% had experienced discrimination at work. Particular at-risk groups for BHA were disabled and female practitioners and for discrimination, Black, Asian and minority ethnic, disabled and female practitioners. The greatest source of BHA was from workers they see in clinics, followed by employers (managers/human resources). The greatest source of discrimination was closely tied between their own employer, their OH colleagues and workers they see in clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of workplace BHA and discrimination among the UK OH practitioners identified in this study needs to be addressed and action taken through improvements in future policy and practice within OH organisations.
AIMS: To investigate the prevalence of workplace BHA and discrimination among UK OH practitioners and to identify any differences on the basis of certain personal or work-related characteristics.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted by the administration of a developed questionnaire by key UK OH organisations to their respective memberships. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise study population characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess associations between certain personal or work-related characteristics and experiences of (i) BHA and (ii) discrimination at work.
RESULTS: Among the 367 OH respondents (response rate = 11%), of which 245 (67%) were OH physicians, 110 (30%) OH nurses/advisors and 12 (3%) other OH practitioners, a substantial proportion (75%) had experienced BHA and 40% had experienced discrimination at work. Particular at-risk groups for BHA were disabled and female practitioners and for discrimination, Black, Asian and minority ethnic, disabled and female practitioners. The greatest source of BHA was from workers they see in clinics, followed by employers (managers/human resources). The greatest source of discrimination was closely tied between their own employer, their OH colleagues and workers they see in clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of workplace BHA and discrimination among the UK OH practitioners identified in this study needs to be addressed and action taken through improvements in future policy and practice within OH organisations.