Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Given the importance of healthcare centers and the employees of medical centers and affiliated institutions in providing comprehensive health services to the community, especially patients, as well as training the students in health-related fields, it is crucial to address the occupational well-being of university employees who are prone to physical and mental disorders. Therefore, this study aims to develop a model for the occupational well-being of employees at the Abadan University of Medical Sciences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Two hundred Abadan University of Medical Sciences employees were selected using stratified sampling. All the selected participants responded to the Demo and Paschoal Well-being at Work Scale (2016). The model parameters were estimated using partial least squares regression based on the collected data. Afterward, the measurement model of occupational well-being was tested using fit indices. Moreover, data analysis was performed using Smart-PLS software.
RESULT:
The primary results showed that based on the positive correlation indices and t-test results for the factors of occupational well-being, the Demo and Paschoal measurement model had an acceptable fit; moreover, significant internal correlations were observed among the questionnaire items. The composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the factors indicated a high reliability of the occupational well-being measurement model.
CONCLUSION:
The measurement model of occupational well-being was examined, and it is recommended that future researchers employ the current questionnaire to assess occupational well-being.
Keywords: Abadan University of Medical Sciences, employee, occupational well-being
Introduction
Human resources are considered the most essential factor in organizational growth, development, and productivity; on the other hand, the productivity of human resources is associated with a sense of well-being in the workplace.[1] Workplace well-being is a multidimensional construct derived from positive occupational psychology.[2] Theorists and researchers have provided multiple definitions for the term occupational well-being. Van Horn et al. (2004) defined occupational well-being as a positive evaluation of various aspects of one’s job, which includes affective, motivational, behavioral, cognitive, and psychosomatic dimensions.[3] Furthermore, occupational well-being has been defined as the presence of feelings, moods, positive emotions, as well as one’s job satisfaction.[4] Occupational well-being derives from an employee’s positive emotions due to the job characteristics or working environment (job satisfaction), and alignment between professional skills and the demands imposed by tasks (job involvement).[5]
Positive emotions increase life expectancy and lead to long-term well-being.[6] In addition, it is one of the determining factors of productivity[7] and employee creativity.[8]
Schultz has introduced dimensions for occupational well-being that include positive organizational relationships (received support in the workplace), professional self-acceptance (having positive emotions toward oneself, recognition and affirmation of one’s worth and value), job autonomy (the extent to which employees have control over how and where they do their jobs), job purpose (employees perceive their jobs meaningful and feel that their job has a vital role in achieving the organization’s goals), and environmental mastery and job growth (individuals’ attitudes toward their promotion and opportunities for growth in the organization).[9]
Some studies have shown that employees with high occupational well-being experience more positive emotions and perceive daily events as more positive, describing them as pleasant.[10] Hosseinitabaghdehi (2022) demonstrated a meaningful and positive relationship between creative self-efficacy, social responsibility, and occupational well-being.[11] Moreover, another study conducted by Sheikhi et al. (2019) found that there is a direct and meaningful relationship between occupational well-being and organizational commitment,[12] indicating the importance of providing well-being in the workplace in promoting employee commitment and responsibility, ultimately leading to the achievement of the organization’s goals. In addition, Firoozeh and Esmaili Shad (2019) indicated that occupational well-being impacts the employees’ perceived career success.[13]
Cezar-Vaz et al. (2022) described occupational well-being as a positive psychological perception of employees.[14] Additionally, Jain et al. (2021) considered occupational well-being as how employees respond to meeting the needs and challenges of the organization and administrative management, such as job requirements, organizational support, rewards, and interpersonal relationships.[15] Moreover, Massimo et al. (2019) indicated that occupational well-being is associated with an individual’s positive and mental state toward oneself and organizational behavior; the results enhanced the integration of workplace well-being with the risk prevention models, safety measures, and occupational health in organizations.[16] Howell et al. (2016) also showed that well-being indicates a positive mental state, and from this standpoint, occupational well-being is a positive mental state.[17]
The International Labour Organization (2016) states that the lack of well-being in the workplace can harm individual health and safety, potentially leading to poor mental health, job burnout, cardiovascular diseases, and musculoskeletal disorders, in addition to other undesirable organizational outcomes such as absenteeism, decreased productivity, and human errors.[18]
Uncu et al. (2007) believe that job-related psychological well-being serves as a motivational factor in minimizing health problems resulting from long working hours, low wages, and unhealthy work environments. They argue that the stronger and more positive the connections in work processes and environments, the better the occupational health of employees, the lower the occupational hazards, and the healthier the work interactions.[19]
In general, it can be said that healthcare employees in healthcare centers, medical facilities, and medical universities who rely heavily on interpersonal relationships and social connections are susceptible to physical and mental disorders. Occupational well-being can be inhibitory or moderating in relation to these disorders.[18] This is particularly more obvious in deprived areas where a lack of resources and skilled workforce can be detrimental to the well-being of employees. The researcher aimed to develop a measurement model for the occupational well-being of the employees at Abadan University of Medical Sciences. By reviewing previous studies, it can be inferred that extensive research has been conducted regarding occupational well-being using various research methods. However, considering that one of the significant factors that can affect the results of any research is the conceptual measurement model, the main issue in this study was to determine whether the measurement model of occupational well-being is adequately fit.
Materials and Methods
Study design and setting
The present research was correlation and employing structural equation modeling.
Study participants and sampling
The study population was constituted of all the experts of educational and medical centers, as well as the experts of affiliated deputies of Abadan University of Medical Sciences (Food and Drug, Treatment and Health, Support, Research, Educational, and Cultural). The statistical population of the present research consisted on 420 individuals selected from personnel information system. Considering that a minimum of five samples is required for each free parameter in structural equation modeling, a sample size of 145 was calculated. However, knowing that the sample size in structural equation modeling cannot be less than 200 individuals,[20] a sample size of 200 individuals was estimated. The stratified sampling method was also applied in this study. For this purpose, a list of experts from the Abadan University of Medical Sciences was collected and numbered. As explained, using stratified sampling, 200 individuals were selected from the total population of experts at Abadan University of Medical Sciences, which accounted for 47.6% of the total population. The inclusion criterion was having an official notification as an expert, and the participants were free to withdraw from the study at any point in case of dissatisfaction. According to the stratified sampling method, a sample size equivalent to 47.6% of the total population for each stratum was determined; the stratums consisted of educational and medical centers and affiliated deputies of the university. Therefore, after determining a list of the population of each stratum, individuals were randomly selected based on their assigned numbers, considering the sample size. Afterward, selected candidates were visited at their workplace in the deputy offices at the university.
Data collection tool and technique
A questionnaire consisting of two sections, demographics and occupational well-being, was used to collect data. The demographic section included age, sex, marital status, education, and work experience. The second section of the questionnaire was designed to collect data using Demo and Paschoal well-being at work scale. The mentioned scale included 29 items with three subscales: negative effect, positive effect, and fulfillment. The scoring of the questionnaire is based on a Likert scale, including very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. It can be administrated either individually or as a group. The scores range from 1 to 5 on the Likert scale, and the total range of the scale can be between 1 and 145. The score ranges of the subscales are as follows: 1–45 for the positive effect, 1–60 for the negative effect, and 1–40 for the fulfillment. The reliability of the scale was calculated by Demo and Paschoal[4] in 2016 using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.92.
Moreover, the reliability of the mentioned scale was assessed by Jahanbazi[21] on 216 nurses in 2019; the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.95; and the reliability coefficient for the subscales were found to be 0.96, 0.97 and 0.91 for positive effect, negative effect, and fulfillment, respectively. SPSS-24 software (IBN Company in New York, USA) was applied for data entry, calculation of descriptive indices, reliability of tools, and testing the assumptions of structure equation modeling method. Due to the non-normal distribution of the data, a partial least squares approach was used, and Smart-PLS software (Smart-PLS Gmbh company in Hamburg, Germany) was also utilized.
Ethical consideration
The research objective was explained to the employees, who were assured that their information would be confidential. If the employees agreed to participate in the study, the questionnaires were distributed among them, and then they were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves.
Result
Table 1 shows the frequency distribution of the demographic characteristics of the studied subjects. Cronbach’s alpha reliability and composite reliability were applied in order to assess reliability; the results are demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 1.
The frequency of demographic variables of the participants
| Variable | Frequency and percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | (44.3) 82 |
| Female | (55.7) 103 | |
| Age | Under the age of 35 | (21.1) 39 |
| From 36 to 45 | (48.6) 90 | |
| From 46 to 55 | (25.9) 48 | |
| Above the age of 56 | (25.5) 8 | |
| Education | Diploma | (10.3) 19 |
| Associate’s degree | (8.1) 15 | |
| Bachelor’s degree | (40.5) 75 | |
| Master’s degree or higher | (41.1) 76 | |
| Marital status | Single | (18.9) 35 |
| Married | (81.1) 150 | |
| Years of work experience | Less than the age of five | (2.7) 5 |
| From 6 to 10 | (20) 37 | |
| From 11 to 15 | (29.7) 55 | |
| From 16 to 20 | (14.6) 27 | |
| 20 and older | (33) 61 | |
Table 2.
Cronbach’s alpha value, composite reliability, and average variance extracted value of occupational well-being measurement model
| Variables | AVE | Cronbach’s α | Composite reliability | Effect size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupational well-being | Positive affect | 0.798 | 0.973 | 0.973 | 0.25 |
| Negative affect | 0.712 | 0.967 | 0.967 | 0.271 | |
| Fulfillment | 0.6 | 0.923 | 0.921 | 0.286 |
Table 2 shows that Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of occupational well-being are α = 0.857 and CR = 0.351, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of positive effect are α = 0.963 and CR = 0.963, respectively, and Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of negative effect are as follows: α = 0.967 and CR = 0.967. Finally, Cronbach’s alpha and Composite reliability of fulfillment are α = 0.923 and CR = 0.921, respectively. Values above 0.7 are an indication of proper reliability. Moreover, the convergent and divergent validity results in Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate high validity of the questionnaires used in the present research.
Table 3.
Results of divergent validity using the Fornell–Larcker method
| Variable | Factors | Positive affect | Negative affect | Fulfillment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupational well-being | Positive affect | 0.893 | ||
| Negative affect | −0.496 | 0.844 | ||
| Fulfillment | 0.456 | −0.1.4 | 0.775 |
*P<0.05; **P<0.01
Table 3 shows the result of divergent validity using Fornell and Larcker method (1981). The square root of each average variance extracted (AVE) should be greater than its highest correlation with any other item. The square root of the AVE is located in the main diameter. The research findings indicate that each item’s correlation with its indicators is higher than its correlation with other items. In other words, the divergent validity of the variables is acceptable.
The demographic results of the samples in Table 4 show that positive effect significantly impacted occupational well-being (P < 0.01, t = 5.629, β = 0.875). Moreover, there was a meaningful relationship between negative effect and occupational well-being (P < 0.01; P > 0, t = 2.044, β = 0.803). Finally, a meaningful relationship was seen between negative effect and occupational well-being (P < 0.01, t = 5.357, β = 0.514). Figure 1 shows the occupational well-being measurement model.
Table 4.
Values of R2, cross-validity indices, concordance, and Q2 measure for the occupational well-being measurement model
| Variables | Values of R2 | Cross-validity | (Stone–Geisser’s) Q2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupational well-being | Occupational well-being | – | 0.387 | – |
| Positive affect | 0.82 | 0.723 | 0.584 | |
| Negative affect | 0.693 | 0.649 | 0.439 | |
| Fulfillment | 0.294 | 0.531 | 0.155 |
Figure 1.
Occupational well-being measurement model. Goodness of fit (GOF) is calculated as 0.587, which was used to evaluate the quality of the occupational well-being measurement model, indicating a solid quality of the research model. 
The results in Table 4 demonstrate the cross-validity index, indicating the quality of the research model. The predictive relationship indicators for the model variables have been reported, confirming the desired model due to their positive values. The Q2 criterion (Stone–Geisser) is also reported in Table 4, demonstrating the model’s predictive power for dependent variables. Values above zero for this index indicate that the observed values have been well reproduced and the model is capable of predicting relationships.
In this study, the reliability of the measurement model of occupational well-being was assessed based on Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, which demonstrated a high level of reliability consistent with the findings of Demo and paschoal, paschoal and Tamayo, Jahanbazi and Lotfzadeh[4,21,22] This indicates the high reliability of the measurement scales applied in the study.
According to the findings, the present model has a good validity based on the high values of AVE and significant T-values, which is consistent with the results of Demo and paschoal, paschoal and Tamayo, Jahanbazi and Lotfzadeh[4,21,22] who obtained high validity.
Regarding the model fit indices used in this study, the goodness-of-fit (GOF) index was employed. The GOF index evaluates the overall predictive capability of the model; it also assesses whether the tested model successfully predicted the variables. Models with acceptable structural fit also have the ability to predict the latent variables within the model. That is to say, if the relationships between the structures are appropriately defined, the structures have a sufficient impact on one another. Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that the occupational well-being model has an acceptable fit, which aligns with the findings of Demo and Paschoal, and Paschoal and Tamayo.[4,22] The demographic results showed that positive effect had a meaningful and significant impact on occupational well-being, consistent with Demo and Paschoal’s study, Cezar-Vaz et al., and Cohen et al.[14,23] In other words, a healthy work environment can lead to a good feeling and, consequently, a positive effect. It also improves interpersonal relationships and facilitates effective and positive communication with the organization,[24] which has a significant impact on occupational well-being. Additionally, fulfilling job goals creates a sense of productivity in the workplace for individuals.[25]
Furthermore, the results indicate that negative effect significantly impacts occupational well-being, and there is an inverse relationship between them. The mentioned results align with the findings of Demo and Paschoal, Uncu et al., Allen et al.[4,19,26] The results of the present research showed a direct and meaningful relationship between occupational fulfillment and occupational well-being, which is consistent with the studies of Demo and Paschal, Schultz, Hosseinitabaghdehi, and Sheikhi et al.[1,4,7,11,12]
A positive attitude toward one’s performance leads to positive effect and facilitates positive and effective relationships with oneself, others, and the organization, thus improving occupational well-being. Considering all of the above, occupational well-being enhances productivity, creativity, organizational commitment, and quality improvement. Such characteristics lead to coping with difficulties, creating opportunities in times of constraint, and improving job quality. The combination of these factors can assist the parent organization to achieve its goals more quickly, cost-effectively, and easily, ultimately saving time, energy, and workforce in organizations. Therefore, achieving better performance, time and energy saving for employees and clients, and achieving organizational goals by improving occupational well-being is promising.
Limitation and recommendation
One limitation of this study is that it was restricted to the employees of Abadan University of Medical Sciences in a short period of time. Additionally, a questionnaire was used to collect data; therefore, some participants may have refrained from providing honest answers and given inaccurate responses.
Conclusion
The influence of occupational well-being on self-efficacy, creativity, job success, productivity improvement, and optimal decision-making leads to increased job quality and improved psychological and organizational conditions. Moreover, it enhances overall health and causes positive mental health toward oneself and the organization, resulting in job satisfaction as well as job commitment.
This study assists other researchers in measuring the components of occupational well-being in order to identify the cognitive and emotional aspects of the employees in the workplace. In addition, this study aimed to examine the influence of occupational well-being on the work process. Fulfilling job goals has received special attention, focusing on employees’ self-awareness and understanding. According to previous research, this can provide job quality improvement and lead to the management of the employee’s health and safety.
The current study presented a model in order to assess occupational well-being, dividing the factors and their effectiveness, which distinguishes this study from others. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies should be conducted on a larger scale, involving multiple communities, over a more extended period of time. Furthermore, based on the results of this study, it is recommended that researchers employ the current model to assess the occupational well-being of employees in other related centers and medical universities across the country.
Financial support and sponsorship
No financial support was used in this research.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgment
This research has been approved by Abadan University of Medical Sciences under the ethics code of IR.ABADANUMS.REC.1399.115
References
- 1.Schultz ML. Occupational well-being: The development of a theory and a measure: Kansas State University. 2008 [Google Scholar]
- 2.Houdmont J, Leka S. John Wiley and Sons; 2010. Occupational health psychology. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Van Horn JE, Taris TW, Schaufeli WB, Schreurs PJ. The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2004;77:365–75. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Demo G, Paschoal T. Well-being at work scale: Exploratory and confirmatory validation in the USA. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) 2016;26:35–43. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ćulibrk J, Delić M, Mitrović S, Ćulibrk D. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job involvement: The mediating role of job involvement. Front Psychol. 2018;9:132. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Golparvar M, Karmi M. The relationship between trait positive and negative affect with injustice and employees’ destructive behaviors. Soc Justice Res. 2011;13:97–130. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hassan E, Austin C, Celia C, Disley E, Hunt P, Marjanovic S, et al. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2009. Health and wellbeing at work in the United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Miao R, Cao Y. High-performance work system, work well-being, and employee creativity: Cross-level moderating role of transformational leadership. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1640. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16091640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Abkhiz S, Michaeli Manee F. The study of structural relationships of cognitive self-regulation and occupational wellbeing in secondary high-school teachers: Job-burnout and job-satisfaction. J Career Organ Counsel. 2020;12:71–86. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Golparvar M, Sadeghi E. Relationship between work-family conflict and spillover with psychosomatic complaints. J Psychol. 2016 [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hosseinitabaghdehi L. The relationship between creative self-efficacy, social responsibility and Occupational well-being of law enforcement officers in Mazandaran province. J Mazandaran Police Sci. 2022;12:23–46. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sheikhi M, Kabiri M, Sheikhi M. Investigating the Relationship between Financial and Non-Financial Rewards and Personality on Organizational Commitment by Mediating the Role of Job Welfare of Police. Officer. 2022;18:83–111. [Google Scholar]
- 13.N F, B ES. Predict job well-being based on perceived job success in hospital staff. J Fam Health. 2020;9:123–37. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cezar-Vaz MR, Xavier DM, Bonow CA, Vaz JC, Cardoso LS, Sant’Anna CF, et al. Occupational well-being of multidisciplinary PHC teams: Barriers/facilitators and negotiations to improve working conditions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:15943. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192315943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jain A, Hassard J, Leka S, Di Tecco C, Iavicoli S. The role of occupational health services in psychosocial risk management and the promotion of mental health and well-being at work. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:3632. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Massimo C, Bruno SS, Emiliano S, Urszula M. Job satisfaction and subjective well-being in Europe. Econ Sociol. 2019;12:96–183. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Howell KH, Coffey JK, Fosco GM, Kracke K, Nelson SK, Rothman EF, et al. Seven reasons to invest in well-being. Psychol Violence. 2016;6:8. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sema E. Regulations on Occupational Health and the Role of Labor Inspection. European Journal of Medicine and Natural Sciences. 2021;4:67–73. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Uncu Y, Bayram N, Bilgel N. Job related affective well-being among primary health care physicians. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17:514–9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckl264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hyderali H. Tehran: Side, first print; 2014. Structural equation modeling using laser software. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Jahanbazi R, Lotfizadeh M. Investigation the relationship between professional behavior and job well-being among nurses in Shahrekord’s educational hospitals. J Hosp. 2019;18:43–53. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Paschoal T, Tamayo A. Construção e validação da escala de bem-estar no trabalho. Avaliação psicológica. 2008;7(1):11–22. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cohn MA, Fredrickson BL, Brown SL, Mikels JA, Conway AM. Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion. 2009;9:361–8. doi: 10.1037/a0015952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kidd JM. Exploring the components of career well-being and the emotions associated with significant career experiences. J. Career Dev. 2008;35:166–86. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sayyed Alitabar SH, Abedi M, Nilforooshan P. Comparison of the effectiveness of career path-based counseling with career path constructivism counseling on career well-being and adaptability. Career Organ Counsel. 2022;14:27–46. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Allen MS, Greenlees I, Jones M. An investigation of the five-factor model of personality and coping behaviour in sport. J Sports Sci. 2011;29:841–50. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.565064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]