↓ Skip to main content

Emotional Dissonance, Mental Health Complaints, and Sickness Absence Among Health- and Social Workers. The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emotional Dissonance, Mental Health Complaints, and Sickness Absence Among Health- and Social Workers. The Moderating Role of Self-Efficacy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00592
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marthe R. Indregard, Stein Knardahl, Morten B. Nielsen

Abstract

Health- and social workers are frequently exposed to emotionally demanding work situations that require emotion regulation. Studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between emotion regulation and health complaints and sickness absence. In order to prevent health complaints and to reduce sickness absence among health- and social workers, there is need for greater attention to mechanisms explaining when and how emotionally demanding work situations are related to employee health and sickness absence. The overarching aim of this study was therefore to examine the moderating role of generalized self-efficacy on the association between emotional dissonance, employee health (mental distress and exhaustion), and registry based sickness absence. The sample consisted of 937 health- and social workers. Data on emotional dissonance, generalized self-efficacy, exhaustion, and mental distress was collected through questionnaires, whereas official registry data were used to assess sickness absence. A two-step hierarchical regression analysis showed that emotional dissonance was significantly associated with exhaustion, mental distress, and sickness absence, after adjusting for sex, age, and occupation. Interaction analyses with simple slope tests found that self-efficacy moderated the association between emotional dissonance and both exhaustion and mental distress, but not the association with sickness absence. This study shows that health- and social workers who frequently experience emotional dissonance report higher levels of exhaustion and mental distress, and have a higher risk of medically certified sickness absence. Further, health- and social workers with lower self-efficacy beliefs are apparently more sensitive to the degree of emotional dissonance and experienced higher levels of exhaustion and mental distress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Researcher 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 27 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 28 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,006,703
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,725
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,516
of 327,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#177
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.