Booster Breaks in the workplace: Effects on employee stress

The current study examined the effects of a 15-minute daily physical activity break on the stress levels of white collar employees. An innovative group physical activity program, the Booster Break, was implemented in two worksites, both located in a large metropolitan area. One hundred sixteen participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions; 43 participants were assigned to the Booster Break condition, 40 participants were assigned to an individual, computer-based physical activity condition, and 32 were assigned to a no-physical activity control condition. Self-report and objective measures were taken at baseline and after the completion of the intervention. There were no significant differences among conditions in perceived stress or blood pressure after the intervention. However, the data showed trends in the direction predicted with a decrease in perceived stress among Booster Break (change in perceived stress = -0.1) and computer prompt participants (change in perceived stress = -0.2) and an increase in perceived stress among the control group (change in perceived stress = 0.2). More research is recommended to fully understand the effects of worksite physical activity on stress.^

Use of universal precautions in the workplace: A comparison of two fire /EMS services

The Health Belief Model (HBM) provided the theoretical framework for examining Universal Precautions (UP) compliance factors by Firefighter, EMTs and Paramedics (prehospital care providers). A convenient sample of prehospital care providers (n = 4000) from two cities (Houston and Washington DC), were surveyed to explore the factors related to their decision to comply with Universal Precautions. Eight hundred and sixty-five useable questionnaires were analyzed. The responders were primarily male (95.7%) eight hundred and twenty-eight and thirty-seven were female, prehospital based (100%), EMTs (60.0%) and paramedics (12.8%) who had a mean 13 years of prehospital care experience. ^ Linear regression was used to evaluate the four hypotheses. The first hypothesis evaluating perceived susceptibility and seriousness with reported UP use was statistically significant (p = < .05). Perceived susceptibility, when considered independently, did not make a significant contribution (t = −4.2852; p = 0.0000) to the stated use of Universal precautions. The hypothesis is not supported as stated. The data indicates the opposite effect. Supported is the premise that as perceived susceptibility and perceived seriousness increase the use of Universal Precautions decreases. Hypothesis two tested perceived benefits with internal and external barriers. Both perceived benefits and internal and external barriers as well as the overall regression were significant (F = 112.6, p = 0.0000). The contribution of internal and external barriers was statistically significant (t = 0.0175; p = 0.0000) and (t = 0.0128; p = 0.0000). Hypothesis three which tested modifying factors, cues to action, select demographic variables, and the main effects of the HBM with self reported UP compliance overall was significant. The variables gender, birth, education, job type, EMS certification, years of service, years of experience providing patient care, Universal Precautions training hours, type of apparatus assigned to and the number of EMS related incidents responded to in a month were found to have a significant contribution to the stated use of Universal Precautions. ^ The additive effects were tested by use of a stepwise regression that assessed the contribution of each of the significant variables. Three variables in the equation were statistically significant. Internal barriers (t = −8.5507; p = 0.0000), external barriers (t = −6.2862; p = 0.000) and job type 2 & 3. Job type two (t = −2.8464; p = 0.0045 is titled Engineer/Operator. Job type three (t = −2.5730; p = 0.0103) is titled captain. The overall regression was significant (F = 24.06; p = 0.000). The Hypothesis is supported in the certain demographic variables do influence the stated use of Universal precautions and that as internal and external barriers are decreased, there is an increase in the stated use of Universal Precautions. ^ In summary, this study demonstrated that internal and external barriers have a significant impact on the stated use of Universal Precautions. Internal barriers are those factors within the individual that require an internal change (i.e., forgetfulness, freedom, perception of the urgency of the patient's needs etc.) and external barriers are things in the environment that can be altered (i.e., equipment design, availability of equipment, ease of use). These two model variables explained 23%–30% of the variance. ^

Democracy in the healthcare workplace: A critical perspective

A review of existing literature revealed at least two distinct theoretical perspectives or schools of thought which are troubled by problems of the lack of participation in the workplace: Jurgen Habermas' ideal of communicative rationality (1984; 1987); and the field of workplace democracy. Whereas Habermas' ideal of communicative rationality establishes communication as necessary to attain a democratic workplace, the ideal of workplace democracy focuses on a participatory ideal in which conditions of open participation must be fulfilled in order to attain a democratic workplace. This study compared the strengths and weaknesses of the conditions proposed by Habermas with the strengths and weaknesses of the conditions selected to represent the workplace democracy ideal. Two incidents were selected for analysis which occurred within a period of one year within one large healthcare organization. The author was present as a participant-observer to assess these incidents. Each of the conditions for the ideal of communicative rationality and for the workplace democracy ideal was systematically applied to both incidents selected for analysis. The results of the analysis suggested that application of Habermas' theory provided more insight into potential distortions in communication than did the conditions selected to represent workplace democracy. Although the conditions of both models were frequently complementary and even overlapping at times, application of each theory to the same incident produced distinctly different results. ^