FİZYOTERAPİSTLERDE MOBBİNG MARUZİYETİ VE İŞ ÜRETKENLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı fizyoterapistlerin mobbing maruziyeti ile iş üretkenliklerinin belirlenmesi ve arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesidir. Materyal ve Metot: Türkiye’deki fizyoterapistlerin mobbing maruziyetleri ve iş üretkenliklerinin belirlenmesi için sırasıyla ‘Leymann’ın Psikolojik Terör Envanteri’(LPTE) ve ‘Endicott İşte Üretkenlik Ölçeği’(EİÜÖ) kullanılmıştır. Katılımcıların demografik bilgilerinin sorgulandığı bir bölüme ek LPTE ve EİÜO’yü içeren form, fizyoterapistlerin kullandığı sosyal medya kanalları ve e-posta gruplarına gönderilmiştir.

Bulgular: Formu toplam 307 fizyoterapist cevaplamış, 14 katılımcının formu eksik veriler nedeni ile çıkartılmış ve 293 katılımcının verileri analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada yer alan katılımcıların ortalama %65,2’si mobbinge maruz kaldığını beyan etmiştir. İşveren/amirin (n=139) %72,8 ile en yaygın mobbing kaynağı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Kadınların erkeklerden daha fazla mobbinge maruz kaldığı belirlenmiştir (p<0,05). İş üretkenliği açısından cinsiyetler arasında farklılık yoktur (p>0,05). LPTE ve EİÜO skorları arasında pozitif yönde, anlamlı yüksek ilişki tespit edilmiştir(p=0,000, rho= 0.681).

Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonucunda Türkiye’de çalışan fizyoterapistlerin kadınlarda daha fazla olmak üzere yüksek oranda mobbinge maruz kaldığı belirlenmiştir. En çok işveren/amirler tarafından uygulanan mobbingin iş üretkenliğini olumsuz yönde etkilediği görülmüştür. Mobbing maruziyetinin azaltılarak iş üretkenliğinin arttırılması, fizyoterapinin hızlı ve etkin bir şekilde gerçekleştirilmesini sağlayarak, hasta memnuniyeti ve tedavi çıktılarını iyileştirebilir.

Keywords

• Fizyoterapist,iş yerinde şiddet,üretkenlik

INVESTIGATION OF EXPOSURE TO MOBBING AND WORK PRODUCTIVITY IN PHYSIOTHERAPISTS

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the mobbing exposure and work productivity of physiotherapists and to examine the relationship between them.

Method: To determine the physiotherapists' mobbing exposure and work productivity in Turkey, the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror Inventory (LIPT) and the Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS) were used respectively. A form including the LIPT, EWPS and an additional section questioning demographic data was sent to social media channels and e-mail groups used by physiotherapists.

Results: A total of 307 physiotherapists responded to the form. Due to missing data, 14 forms were excluded, so the data of 293 respondents were analyzed. On average 65.2% of the participants in the study reported that they were exposed to mobbing. It was determined that the most common source of the mobbing was employer/chief with rate of 72.8% (n=139). It was detected that females were exposed to mobbing more than males (p<0.05). There was no difference between the genders in terms of work productivity (p>0.05). A statistically significant positive high relationship was determined between the LIPT and EWPS scores (p=0.000, rho=0.681).

Conclusion: As a results of this study it was determined that physiotherapists working in Turkey, and particularly females, are exposed to a high level of the mobbing. It was seen that mobbing mostly is perpetrated by employers/chiefs affects work productivity in the negative direction. Increasing work productivity by reducing mobbing exposure can improve patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes by enabling physiotherapy to be performed quickly and effectively.

Keywords

• Physiotherapist,workplace violence,productivity

References

1. 1. Leymann H. Mobbing and Psychological Terror at Workplaces. Violence Vict. 1990;5(2):119–26.
2. 2. Polat O, Pakiş I. Mobbing: İşyerinde Psikolojik Taciz. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilim Derg. 2012;3(4):211–7.
3. 3. Khoo SB. Academic mobbing: Hidden health hazard at workplace. Vol. 5, Malaysian Family Physician. 2010. p. 61–7.
4. 4. Ayranci U, Yenilmez C, Balci Y, Kaptanoglu C. Identification of violence in Turkish health care settings. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21(2):276–96.
5. 5. Ng K, Yeung J, Cheung I, Chung A, White P. Workplace violence-A Survey of diagnostic radiographers working in public hospitals in Hong Kong. J Occup Health. 2009;51(4):355–63.
6. 6. Picakciefe M, Turgut A, Igneci E, Cayli F, Deveci A. Relationship Between Socio-Demographic Features, Work-Related Conditions, and Level of Anxiety Among Turkish Primary Health Care Workers. Workplace Health Saf. 2015;63(11):502–11.
7. 7. Kehribar A, Karabela ŞN, Kart Yaşar K, Okur A, Derya M, Özgür C, et al. Çalışma Hayatında Mobbing: Nedenleri, Bileşenleri ve Ülkemizdeki Hukuki Durumu. Bakırköy Tıp Derg. 2017;13:1–9.
8. 8. T.C. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı. İşyerlerinde Psikoljik Taciz (Mobbing) Rehberi [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 May 23]. Available from: https://www.csgb.gov.tr/media/2053/mobbing_ 2014.pdf

9. 9. Uysal ŞA, Keklik B, Erdem R, Çelik R. Hastane yöneticilerinin liderlik özellikleri ile çalışanların iş üretkenlik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Derg. 2017;15(1):25–57.
10. 10. Yazıcıoğlu Y, Erdoğan S. SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2004. 50 p.
11. 11. Önertoy OC. Mobbing İşyerinde Psikolojik Taciz. İstanbul: Ray Yayıncılık; 2014. 19-24 p.
12. 12. Uguz Ş, İnanç BY, Yerlikaya EE, Aydın H. Endicott İşte Üretkenlik Ölçeği’nin ( EİÜÖ ) Türk Toplumunda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi. 2004;15(3):209–14.
13. 13. Ariza-Montes A, Muniz NM, Montero- Simo MJ, Araque-Padilla RA. Workplace bullying among healthcare workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(8):3121– 39.
14. 14. Omari M. Towards Dignity and Respect: An Exploration of Antecedents and Consequences of Bullying Behavior in the Workplace; Final Report Curtin-IPAA Fellowship Program. Brisbane, Australia; 2013.
15. 15. Björkqvist K. Social defeat as a stressor in humans. Physiol Behav. 2004;73:435–42.
16. 16. Leymann H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 1996;5(2):165–84.
17. 17. Castro AM, Rodrigues CM, Moreno LC, Vicente MC, Arroyo MM, Fernadez FM. Prevalence of burnout syndrome in physiotherapy. Fisioterapia. 2006;28:17–22.
18. 18. Einarsen S. Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Vol. 5, Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2000. p. 379–401.
19. 19. Quine L. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1999;318(7178):228–32.
20. 20. El-Gilany A-H, El-Wehady A, Amr M. Violence Against Primary Health Care Workers in Al-Hassa, Saudi Arabia. J Interpers Violence. 2010;25(4):716–34.
21. 21. Hoel H, Cooper C. Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Unpubl Rep Univ Manchester Inst Sci Technol UMIST. 2001;30.
22. 22. Schat ACH, Frone MR, Kelloway EK. Handbook of workplace violence. In: Kelloway JB, Barling J, Hurrell JJ, editors. California: SAGE; 2006. p. 47–90.
23. 23. Einarsen S, Skogstad A. Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 1996;5(2):185–201.
24. 24. Untoro J, Gross R, Schultink W, Sediaoetama D. The association between BMI and haemoglobin and work productivity among Indonesian female factory workers. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52(2):131–5.
25. 25. Pasquale VD. Study examines “mobbing” at the workplace [Internet]. EurWork. 2002 [cited 2017 May 23]. Available from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatorie s/eurwork/articles/study-examines-mobbing-atthe- workplace
26. 26. Weuve C, Pitney WA, Martin M, Mazerolle SM. Experiences with workplace bullying among athletic trainers in the collegiate setting. J Athl Train. 2014;49(5):696–705.
27. 27. Bilgel N, Aytac S, Bayram N. Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2006;56(4):226–31.
28. 28. Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying at work. In: Einarsen H, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper C, editors. Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2003.
29. 29. Glendinning PM. Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace. Vol. 30, Public Personnel Management. 2001. p. 269–86.
30. 30. Davenport N, Schwartz RD, Elliott GP. Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Civil Society Publishing; 1999.
31. 31. Boles M, Pelletier B, Lynch W. The Relationship Between Health Risks and Work Productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(7):737–45.
32. 32. Dellasega CA. Bullying Among Nurses. AJN, Am J Nurs. 2009;109(1):52–8.
33. 33. Taspinar F, Aksoy CC, Taspinar B, Cimbiz A. Comparison of patients with different pathologies in terms of shoulder protraction and scapular asymmetry. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013 Aug 20;25(8):1033–8.
34. 34. McKay R, Arnold DH, Fratzl J, Thomas R. Workplace bullying in academia: A Canadian study. Empl Responsib Rights J. 2008;20(2):77–100.
35. 35. Salin D. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2001;10:425–441.