Sağlık çalışanlarında teknostres, iş motivasyonu, iş yükü ve yaşam kalitesi: demografik değişkenlere göre karşılaştırmalı bir analiz

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sağlık çalışanlarının teknostres, iş motivasyonu, algılanan iş yükü ve yaşam kalitesi düzeylerini demografik değişkenlere göre incelemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu kesitsel çalışmaya, Türkiye genelinde kamu ve özel kurumlarda çalışan 300 sağlık çalışanı dahil edilmiştir. Veriler, kartopu örnekleme yöntemiyle çevrim içi anket aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Teknostres, Teknostres Yaratıcıları Ölçeği; iş motivasyonu, İş Motivasyonu Ölçeği; algılanan iş yükü, İş Yükü Ölçeği; yaşam kalitesi ise Kısa Form-36 (SF-36) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca katılımcıların demografik bilgileri kaydedilmiştir. İstatistiksel analizlerde bağımsız örneklem t-testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmış, gerekli durumlarda Tukey post-hoc testleri uygulanmıştır. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p < 0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Cinsiyet ve yaş gruplarına göre teknostres, iş motivasyonu, algılanan iş yükü ve yaşam kalitesi açısından anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır (p > 0,05). Evli sağlık çalışanlarının algılanan iş yükü ve sosyal işlevsellik puanlarının bekar katılımcılara göre anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Mesleki deneyimi 3–6 yıl olan katılımcıların, 10 yıl ve üzeri deneyime sahip olanlara kıyasla daha yüksek tekno-karmaşıklık ve işe ilişkin motivasyon puanlarına, ancak daha düşük sosyal işlevsellik düzeylerine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Mesleğe göre yapılan karşılaştırmalarda, fizyoterapistlerin tekno-aşırı yüklenme, tekno-belirsizlik ve yönetsel motivasyon faktörlerinde daha yüksek puanlar aldığı; ergoterapistlerin ise sosyal rol işlevselliği puanlarının daha yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır. Sonuç: Bulgular, sağlık kurumlarında çalışanların iyilik halini ve mesleki sürdürülebilirliği artırmaya yönelik demografik özellikleri dikkate alan hedefe yönelik örgütsel stratejilerin geliştirilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• teknostres
• sağlık çalışanları
• iş motivasyonu
• iş yükü
• yaşam kalitesi

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kurumdan mali destek veya yardım almamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, 16/02/2024 tarihli ve 38925 sayılı karar ile İstanbul Atlas Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Bilimsel Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu tarafından etik açıdan incelenmiş ve onaylanmıştır.

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmaya katılan tüm sağlık çalışanlarına teşekkür ederiz.

Technostress, work motivation, workload and quality of life among healthcare workers: a comparative analysis across demographic variables

Öz

Aim: This study was conducted to investigate how healthcare workers’ levels of technostress, work motivation, perceived workload, and quality of life (QoL) across different demographic variables. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 300 healthcare professionals working in public and private institutions across Türkiye. Data were collected using an online survey distributed via snowball sampling. Technostress was assessed using the Technostress Creators Scale, work motivation using the Work Motivation Scale, perceived workload using the Workload Scale, and QoL using the Short Form-36. Demographic data were also collected. Statistical analyses were performed using independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance, with post-hoc Tukey tests applied where appropriate. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: No significant differences were observed in technostress, work motivation, perceived workload, or QoL according to gender or age group (p > 0.05). Married healthcare professionals reported significantly higher perceived workload and higher social functioning scores compared with single participants. Participants with 3–6 years of professional experience demonstrated higher techno-complexity and work-related motivation scores, along with lower social functioning, compared with those with 10 years or more of experience. Profession-based comparisons revealed that physiotherapists exhibited higher levels of techno-overload, techno-uncertainty, and managerial motivation factors, whereas occupational therapists demonstrated higher social role functioning scores. Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of developing targeted, demographic-sensitive organizational strategies to promote well-being and sustainability in healthcare work environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• technostress
• healthcare workers
• professional motivation
• workload
• quality of life

Destekleyen Kurum

This study did not receive any funding or support from any institution.

Etik Beyan

The present study was reviewed and approved from an ethical standpoint by the Non-Interventional Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Istanbul Atlas University, with approval dated 16/02/2024 and decision number 38925.

Teşekkür

We would like to thank all healthcare workers who participated in this study.

Kaynakça

1. Gillespie BM, Chaboyer W, Wallis M, Chang HY. Factors that influence the development of resilience in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(12):1624–1632.
2. Manomenidis G, Panagopoulou E, Montgomery A. Job burnout and job satisfaction among nurses: The role of workload and demographic factors. J Nurs Manag. 2019;27(2):364–372.
3. Golz C, Eichenberger NL, Ben Souissi SB, Bieri JS. Examining the technostress dimensions and job satisfaction in nursing – a cross sectional study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024;315:311–315.
4. Liu CF, Cheng TJ, Chen CT. Exploring the factors that influence physician technostress from using mobile electronic medical records. Inform Health Soc Care. 2019;44(1):92–104.
5. Golz C, Peter KA, Zwakhalen SMG, Hahn S. Technostress among health professionals – a multilevel model and group comparisons between settings and professions. Inform Health Soc Care. 2021;46(2):136–147.
6. Zhang H, Zhang Z, Xiao H, Qu R, Zhou Z. Age group variations in the associations between technostress, job burnout, and work engagement among nurses: Evidence from a network analysis. Asian Nurs Res. 2025;S1976 1317(25)00086 6.
7. Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational behavior. 17th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education; 2017.
8. Doğan A, Ertuğrul B, Akin K. Examination of workload perception, burnout, and perceived organizational support in emergency healthcare professionals: A structural equation model. Nurs Health Sci. 2024;26(1):e13092.

9. Hämmig O. Work- and stress-related musculoskeletal and sleep disorders among health professionals: a cross-sectional study in a hospital setting in Switzerland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):319.
10. Redü AO, Xavier DM, Daoud MA, Nörnberg PKO, Sasaki NSGMD S, Farias GM, Lourenção LG. Sociodemographic and occupational influences on health professionals’ quality of life. Rev Bras Enferm. 2024;77(4):e20240010.
11. Martin CA, Baggaley RF, Teece L, Pan D, Nazareth J, Bryant L, Rivas C, Woolf K, Pareek M; UK-REACH study collaborative group. Sociodemographic factors associated with health-related quality of life in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med. 2025;23(1):438.
12. Ghazy RM, Abubakar Fiidow O, Abdullah FSA, Elbarazi I, Ismail II, Alqutub ST, et al. Quality of life among health care workers in Arab countries 2 years after COVID-19 pandemic. Front Public Health. 2022;10:917128.
13. Schroeder S, Kelly D, Leighton K. Influence of years of experience and age on hospital workforce compassion satisfaction, anxiety, depression, stress, and burnout during pandemic: Implications for retention. Psychol Health Med. 2023;28(7):1741–1754.
14. Medeni I, Alagüney ME, Medeni V. Occupational injuries among healthcare workers: a nationwide study in Turkey. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1505331.
15. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Sağlık Bakanlığı. Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2024 [İnternet] [Erişim tarihi: 20 Aralık 2025]. Erişim adresi: https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR-114952/saglik-istatistikleri-yilligi-2024.html
16. Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan AT. Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. J Manag Inf Syst. 2010;27(3):303 34.
17. Bulut A, Şengül H, Akbal S. Sağlık profesyonelleri için teknostres yaratıcıları ölçeği Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. J Acad Res Nurs. 2023.
18. Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, et al. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2015;24(2):178–196.
19. Çivilidağ A, Şekercioğlu G. Çok Boyutlu İş Motivasyonu Ölçeğinin Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi. 2017;7(1):143-156.
20. Azizoğlu F, Hayran O, Terzi B. Nursing home and elderly care rehabilitation centres health workers’ workload levels: Individual Workload Perception Scale Turkish validity and reliability study. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Derg. 2021;24(3):298–303.
21. Özyürek P, Kılıç I. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Individual Workload Perception Scale for medical and surgical nurses. J Nurs Meas. 2021;30(3):E93–E107.
22. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483.
23. Pınar R. Reliability and construct validity of the SF 36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):259 64.
24. Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, et al. Normative data and discriminative properties of the SF-36 in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:247.
25. Marchiori DM, Mainardes EW, Rodrigues RG. Do individual characteristics influence the types of technostress reported by workers? Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2019;35(3):218–230.
26. Carlotto MS, Welter Wendt G, Jones AP. Technostress, career commitment, satisfaction with life, and work-family interaction among workers in information and communication technologies. Actual Psicol. 2017;31(122):91–102.
27. Ficapal-Cusí P, Torrent-Sellens J, Yuguero O. Technostress among healthcare professionals in Spain: a cross-sectional survey on the impact of digital health tools. BMJ Open. 2025;15(9):e103783.
28. La Torre G, Esposito A, Sciarra I, Chiappetta M. Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019;92(1):13–35.
29. Chen YH, Lou SZ, Yang CW, et al. Effect of marriage on burnout among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):15811.
30. Maglalang DD, Sorensen G, Hopcia K, Hashimoto DM, Katigbak C, Pandey S, et al. Job and family demands and burnout among healthcare workers: The moderating role of workplace flexibility. SSM Popul Health. 2021;14:100802.
31. Rao A, Shailashri VT. Work-life balance of women medical professionals in the healthcare sector: A systematic literature review. Int J Health Sci Pharm. 2021;5(2):54–79.
32. Alnazly E, Khraisat OM, Al-Bashaireh AM, Bryant CL. Anxiety, depression, stress, fear and social support during COVID-19 pandemic among Jordanian healthcare workers. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0247679.
33. Rostami A, Ghazinour M, Nygren L, Nojumi M, Richter J. Health-related quality of life, marital satisfaction, and social support in medical staff in Iran. Appl Res Qual Life. 2013;8(3):385–402.
34. Dyrbye LN, West CP, Satele D, et al. Burnout among U.S. medical students, residents, and early career physicians. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):443–451.
35. Pearce LMN, Pryor J, Redhead J, Sherrington C, Hassett L. Advanced technology in a real-world rehabilitation setting: longitudinal observational study on clinician adoption and implementation. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e60374.
36. Tığlı AA. The relationship between empathy skills and levels of happiness and burnout among physiotherapists. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2019;14:1017–1019.
37. Kim JH, Kim AR, Kim MG, Kim CH, Lee KH, Park D, Hwang JM. Burnout syndrome and work-related stress in physical and occupational therapists working in different types of hospitals: which group is the most vulnerable? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5001.
38. Keshavarz Z, Gorji M, Houshyar Z, Tamajani ZT, Martin J. The professional quality of life among health-care providers and its related factors. Asian J Soc Health Behav. 2019;2(1):32–38.