No abstract

No abstract

Background While trauma exposure is an established predictor of poor mental health among humanitarian aid workers (HAWs), less is known about the role of psychosocial work-related factors. This study aims to establish a psychosocial model for burnout and psychological distress in HAWs that tests and compares the effects of adversity exposure and workplace stressors in combination, and explores the potential mediating role of individual coping styles. Methods Path analysis and model comparison using cross-sectional online survey data were collected from full-time international and local HAWs in Bangladesh between December 2020 and February 2021. HAWs self-reported on exposure to adversities, workplace psychosocial stressors (Third Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), coping styles (Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory—Human Services Survey), and psychological distress (Kessler-6). Results Among N = 111 HAWs, 30.6%, 16.4%, 12.7%, and 8.2% screened positive for moderate psychological distress (8 ≤ Kessler-6 ≤ 12), emotional exhaustion (EE ≥ 27), depersonalization (DP ≥ 13), and severe psychological distress (K-6 ≥ 13), respectively. 28.8% reported a history of mental disorder. The preferred model showed distinct pathways from adversity exposure and workplace stressors to burnout, with negative emotion-focused coping and psychological distress as significant intervening variables. While greater exposure to both types of stressors were associated with higher levels of burnout and distress, workplace stressors had a stronger association with psychological outcomes than adversity exposure did (β = .52, p ≤ .001 vs. β = .20, p = .032). Workplace stressors, but not adversities, directly influenced psychological distress (β = .45, p ≤ .001 vs. β = −.01, p = .927). Demographic variables, task-focused and avoidance-focused coping were not significantly associated with psychological outcomes. Conclusions Compared to exposure to adversities, workplace stressors primarily influenced occupational stress syndromes. Reducing workplace stressors and enhancing adaptive coping may improve psychological outcomes in humanitarian staff.

No abstract

Background: While trauma exposure is an established predictor of poor mental health among humanitarian aid workers (HAWs), less is known about the role of psychosocial work-related factors. This study aims to establish a psychosocial model for burnout and psychological distress in HAWs that tests and compares the effects of adversity exposure and workplace stressors in combination, and explores the potential mediating role of individual coping styles. Methods: Path analysis and model comparison using cross-sectional online survey data collected from full-time international and local HAWs in Bangladesh between December 2020 and February 2021. HAWs self-reported on exposure to adversities, workplace psychosocial stressors (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), coping styles (The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations), burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory – Human Services Survey), and psychological distress (Kessler-6). Results: Among N=111 HAWs, 30.6%, 16.4%, 12.7%, and 8.2% screened positive for moderate psychological distress (8 ≤ Kessler-6 ≤ 12), emotional exhaustion (EE ≥ 27), depersonalization (DP ≥ 13), and severe psychological distress (K-6 ≥ 13), respectively. 28.8% reported a history of mental disorder. The preferred model showed distinct pathways from adversity exposure and workplace stressors to burnout, with negative emotion-focused coping and psychological distress as significant intervening variables. While greater exposure to both types of stressors were associated with higher levels of burnout and distress, workplace stressors had a stronger association with psychological outcomes than adversity exposure did (β = .52, p = < .001 vs. β = .20, p = .032). Workplace stressors, but not adversities, directly influenced psychological distress (β = .45, p = < .001 vs. β = -.01, p = .927). Demographic variables, task-focused and avoidance-focused coping were not significantly associated with psychological outcomes. Conclusions: Compared to exposure to adversities, workplace stressors primarily influence occupational stress syndromes. Reducing workplace stressors and enhancing adaptive coping can improve psychological outcomes in humanitarian staff.