Exploring resilience among hospital workers: a Bayesian approach
Open accessAbstract
Background and importance: Healthcare professionals face significant workloads, as their roles are among the most demanding and stressful. Resilience serves as a crucial factor in helping them cope with the challenges encountered in their work environment and effectively manage stress. Assessing the level of resilience among healthcare workers and identifying potential variations across different groups is essential for effective public health management, preventing burnout, and ultimately enhancing patient care. Objective: To assess the resilience of various categories of workers operating within a tertiary care multisite hospital and understanding if there are any differences in resilience, based on their characteristics, the type of department they work in, and personality traits. Design, setting and participants: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in January 2024 at EOC, a multi-site tertiary care hospital located in Southern Switzerland. 1,197 hospital workers answered an online survey which included: (1) an ad hoc questionnaire on personal and job characteristics, well-being-related activities, satisfaction level regarding communication, collaboration, support, and training opportunities in the workplace, (2) the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10-Item on resilience, and (3) the Big Five Personality Inventory 10-item on personality traits. Outcome measures and analysis: Proportion of resilient and highly resilient individuals within the various categories of workers were analyzed with Bayesian approach and Bayesian robust regression. Main results: Being part of the hospitality staff, working as a doctor, and having a male sex were associated to the highest scores of resilience. Surgery and emergency departments had the highest proportion of highly resilient individuals. Male sex, older age, seniority, higher hierarchical rank, engagement in physical activities, relaxation or mindfulness practices, religiosity, perception of good collaboration, communication, support, and physical activity correlated with higher resilience skills. Conclusion: This cross-sectional study found that physicians and hospitality staff within our multi-site Swiss hospital are more resilient compared to other categories of hospital workers, and among departments, those working in surgery and Emergency Medicine. Enhancing our comprehension of resilience is crucial for more precise management of healthcare systems and the development of employment policies aimed at sustaining the capacity of healthcare systems to serve patients effectively, while also mitigating shortages of healthcare professionals.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AAQ2, CD-RISC 10, and PSRS have good validity and reliability for measuring psychological flexibility, resilience, and stress reactivity.
“which exhibits strong convergent and discriminant validity, while also being robust to social desirability bias.”
From Enhanced Stress-Resilience Training (ESRT) for graduate-entry medical students: a randomised-controlled, mixed-method investigation (2025) · cites this paper as [55]
The Materials and methods section (‘Measure of resilience’; page unavailable) describes CD-RISC 10 as a resilience measure with good reliability and validity, including convergent and discriminant validity. Our copy does not establish those properties for AAQ2 or PSRS, or say that the measure is robust to social desirability bias. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [16]Pattnak T Samanta SR Mohanty J. Work life balance of health Care Workers in the new Normal: a review of literature. J Med Chen Sci. (2022): 42– 54. doi: 10.26655/JMCHEMSCI.2022.1.6 · DOI
- Authors
- Uccella, L., Mascherona, I., Semini, S., & Uccella, S.
- Affiliations
- Ospedale regionale di Lugano (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Uccella, Laura
- Venue
- Frontiers in Public Health
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2024-08-29
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 1403721-1403721
- ISSN
- 2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11390436
- OpenAlex
- W4402018997
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
- Keywords
- resilience, hospital staff, healthcare workers, occupational stress, burnout prevention, Big Five personality traits, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, physical activity, mindfulness, religiosity, physicians, emergency department, surgical department
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bayes Theorem, Burnout, Professional, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personnel, Hospital, Surveys and Questionnaires, Switzerland, Workplace, Resilience, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
