Effects of a Randomized Intervention to Improve Workplace Social Capital in Community Health Centers in China

Abstract

ObjectiveTo examine whether workplace social capital improved after implementing a workplace social capital intervention in community health centers in China.MethodsThis study was conducted in 20 community health centers of similar size in Jinan of China during 2012–2013. Using the stratified site randomization, 10 centers were randomized into the intervention group; one center was excluded due to leadership change in final analyses. The baseline survey including 447 staff (response rate: 93.1%) was conducted in 2012, and followed by a six-month workplace social capital intervention, including team building courses for directors of community health centers, voluntarily public services, group psychological consultation, and outdoor training. The follow-up survey in July 2013 was responded to by 390 staff members (response rate: 86.9%). Workplace social capital was assessed with the translated and culturally adapted scale, divided into vertical and horizontal dimensions. The facility-level intervention effects were based on all baseline (n = 427) and follow-up (n = 377) respondents, except for Weibei respondents. We conducted a bivariate Difference-in-Difference analysis to estimate the facility-level intervention effects.ResultsNo statistically significant intervention effects were observed at the center level; the intervention increased the facility-level workplace social capital, and its horizontal and vertical dimensions by 1.0 (p = 0.24), 0.4 (p = 0.46) and 0.8 (p = 0.16), respectively.ConclusionsThe comprehensive intervention seemed to slightly improve workplace social capital in community health centers of urban China at the center level. High attrition rate limits any causal interpretation of the results. Further studies are warranted to test these findings.

Whole-system approaches to improving the health and wellbeing of healthcare workers: A systematic review

“…Update searches (Oct 2013 and Sept 2016) identified a further 7 studies (6 from update searches and 1 from hand searching). A total of eleven studies [ 6 , 23 – 32 ] were included, and are summarised in Tables 1 – 3 .…”

“…All reviewed studies included self-reported measures of individual health behaviours and health outcomes, and four studies [ 6 , 23 , 28 , 29 ] included self-reported measures of the psychosocial workplace environment (see Table 3 ). Two studies [ 28 , 32 ] reported Body Mass Index (BMI).…”

“…Follow up periods varied considerably; in six studies [ 23 – 26 , 29 – 31 ] follow-up (or single time-point) data were collected immediately post intervention. In the remaining studies follow-up data were collected at between 3 months [ 26 , 32 ] and 5 years [ 27 ] after the start of the programme. Follow-up rates also varied as the workforce itself changed over the follow-up period.…”

“…Attrition rates: Five of the eight studies reporting follow-up had attrition rates higher than 20% (ranging from just over 20% to 50%) [ 6 , 25 – 27 , 32 ]. One study reported no attrition; two studies reported 20% attrition (Lemon, Uchiyama); four studies [ 6 , 25 – 27 ] reported attrition rates varying from 22 to 33%; one study reported 50% attrition, one [ 23 ] did not report attrition rates; and two did not have baseline measurements [ 24 , 31 ].…”

Confirmation of Maslow’s Hypothesis of Synergy: Developing an Acceptance of Selfishness at the Workplace Scale

“…Recent studies have suggested associations between workplace social capital and mental health [ 27 , 28 ]. However, only a few studies have suggested how to elevate workplace social capital [ 29 , 30 ]. An elevation of acceptance of selfishness at the workplace followed by an elevation of Maslow’s synergy may elevate workplace social capital.…”