Does bullying in the hospital affect the health-related quality of life of health professionals?

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

This study investigates workplace harassment among Greek NHS employees and its impact on Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL).

OBJECTIVES:

In the present study, we highlight that the consequences of workplace harassment and the concomitant damaged satisfaction can negatively affect health-related quality of life in Public Hospitals.

METHODS:

A sample of 343 employees from five Athens-based hospitals, including doctors, nurses, administrative and technical personnel, completed the Greek versions of the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Multiple logistic regression identified factors associated with mobbing, and adjusted odds ratios were computed.

RESULTS:

Out of the 37.5% of the employees who reported experiencing mobbing, 22.7% were bullied daily, and 49.2% almost daily. Furthermore, 66.7% were bullied by colleagues of the same grade, while 58.7% were from superiors. Regarding HRQoL, all SF-36 dimension scores were significantly lower (p < 0.001) for the mobbing victims, compared to others not having suffered workplace harassment.

CONCLUSION:

The existence of mobbing in the Greek NHS is evident, and that harms health. Preventing workplace harassment should be high on policymakers’ agendas to improve human resource management and health system performance.

Keywords

Workplace harassment health related quality of life mobbing NHS hospital

1 Introduction

Over the last decade and during an unprecedented economic and humanitarian crisis, too many extreme and divergent attitudes have led to social marginalization. These behaviors include verbal or non-verbal (extra verbal) violence to people who do not “fit in” the “stronger” groups, either because of gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or because of their physical or mental characteristics. For many workers in private and public organizations, these behaviors have become a harsh and painful reality [1] and appear in the form of mobbing syndrome/or bullying [2 –8]. The mobbing syndrome is described as “psychological harassment at work” [9 –14]. Mobbing may cause psychological problems such as depression, stress, and anxiety with negative consequences such as reducing productivity at work and deterioration in interpersonal relationships [15 –19]. This syndrome is considered one of the most severe forms of harassment in the workplace [20], with profound corrosive and toxic effects on the entire organization [21]. One person typically perpetrates bullying, although others in a workplace may join in.

On the other hand, mobbing involves a group of people whose size is constrained by the social setting in which it is formed, such as a workplace [22 –24]. It might seem as if many people are involved, but the group might be small in reality. From a sociological perspective, mobbing can be paralleled to the hostile behaviour towards the weaker members of a herd of animals exhibited by the solid and influential members. In the “real-world” workplace, it is essentially a form of racism shown by those who are hierarchically superior, or even by same grade coworkers, towards colleagues who are regarded as undesirable, in an attempt to push them even to resignation [25].

Heinz Leymann, a Swedish Psychologist, in his first studies in the 1980 s, defined the mobbing syndrome as a form of hostile and unethical communication. He pointed out that the distinction between ‘conflict’ and ‘psychological harassment’ is not focused on what is done or how it is done but on the frequency and duration of what is being done [26]. Those engaging in mobbing essentially attack or terrify their victims. They aim to traumatize their dignity and humiliate them, with a noticeable impact on physical and mental health not only of themselves but also of their families. Common characteristics of workplace harassment are aggressive and/or offensive behaviour, irony, slander, humiliation treatment, threats, etc. Harassment can be expressed by underestimating the victim’s work, the assignment of tasks with excessive obligations, and non-realistic or even unachievable deadlines that do not correspond to the employee’s certified qualifications and abilities. According to studies on mobbing in the international literature, “victims” of psychological violence usually report their superiors as the most frequent “perpetrators” of aggression, and women face workplace harassment more times than men [27, 28]. Emotional abuse consequences include sleep disorders, depression, physical fatigue, aggression, and even suicidal tendency [29]. People mobbed at work are typically unable to concentrate, lose their motivation for work, and eventually show a decrease in performance, which inevitably leads to reduced productivity and affects the entire organization [30].

In the health care sector, factors related to the occurrence and maintenance of bullying among workers are the lack of human resources in conjunction with an organizational culture that promotes competition [31, 32], increased workloads, excessive requirements, and pressing deadlines leading to long-term fatigue, unsatisfactory work and arguing among workers, absence of cohesion among the team and low levels of mutual support [33]. These factors contribute to persisting long-term work stress, which causes emotional tensions and attitudes that could increase the incidence of mobbing [34]. The hostile work environment that mobbing creates is harmful to the dedication of health professionals to their work. It decreases their performance, increases their errors and accidents, and eventually affects the quality of the services provided [35]. As public service employees (including “bullies”) generally enjoy lifelong job security, in contrast to their private sector counterparts, mobbing behaviours are more frequent in the public health sector and can last from a few weeks or months throughout many years.

According to Andrews & Whitney [36], work is one of the twelve factors related to “perceived quality of life.” Therefore, the consequences of workplace harassment and the concomitant damaged job satisfaction can negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [37, 38]. The literature lacks studies, which investigate the relationship between workplace harassment and HRQoL in healthcare infrastructures. Considering that mobbing is a severe and increasing phenomenon that can significantly affect the efficiency of the healthcare staff, this research aims to record the frequency of professional intimidation or mobbing syndrome among employees of five public hospitals of the National Health System (NHS) in Athens, Greece. The study also focuses on the effect of mobbing on the HRQoL of various professional groups in the system, in an effort to highlight possible links between specific factors and the syndrome. This is one of the first attempts to investigate the relationship between professional bullying and HRQoL in Greece’s public health sector.

2 Method

2.1 Sample and data collection

The study was conducted between June and September 2018 in five public NHS hospitals in the Athens area. All the doctors, nurses, paramedical, administrative, and technical personnel working in these hospitals were eligible to participate. Stratified sampling was used to ensure subsamples that were roughly proportional to the countrywide population of each professional group and thus avoid over-or under representation bias. Overall, 400 health care professionals (80 from each hospital) were invited to participate (90 doctors, 160 nurses, 80 administrative, 40 technical, and 30 paramedical personnel). The survey was conducted in collaboration with department heads and supervisors in the participating hospitals. The participants were asked to complete the questionnaires anonymously and to return their answers to the researcher within two weeks in a sealed envelope, which was provided to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of the data. No information, which could eventually reveal a participant’s identity, was requested. The completion time was approximately 15–20 minutes, and all the participants gave their consent to participate in the study.

2.2 Instruments

The Greek modified version of the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) [39] was used in this study. It consists of 45 items, each one measuring the exposure to workplace bullying within the previous 12 months with two response options (no or yes). It includes two additional questions on the frequency (i.e., daily, weekly, or monthly basis) as well as the duration of bullying (i.e., months and years). The 45 bullying behaviors are grouped into five sections [9] according to the impact of each on the victim: (1) social relationships at work (no possibility to communicate, verbal aggression, criticism, and indifference), (2) exclusion (isolation, rejection, and avoidance), (3) job tasks (no tasks, too many tasks, tedious tasks, humiliating tasks, tasks superior, or inferior to skills), (4) personal attacks (attacks on opinion or origins, rumors, gossiping, and ridicule), and (5) physical violence (physical threats including sexual harassment). According to Leymann’s definition, those who report exposure to at least one of the 45 bullying behaviors within the previous 12 months, weekly or more, and for six months or longer are considered as victims of bullying. The LIPT has been validated for use in several European countries as well [40, 41].

The SF-36 Health Survey was used for measuring HRQoL, which includes eight dimensions: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health [42]. Each dimension is scored on a 0–100 scale, with 0 and 100 correspondings to worst and best health status, respectively [43], and the eight dimensions can also be summarized in two summary scores of physical and mental health [44]. The instrument has been translated to Greek, and its reliability and validity were established in a representative sample of adults living in the greater Athens area. It was found to have high internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminative validity, and the ability to distinguish between groups of respondents in the usual manner (known groups validity) based on gender, age, and socio-economic status [45].

2.3 Statistical analysis

Normally distributed variables are expressed as mean (standard deviation), and skewed variables as median (inter-quartile range). Nominal/ordinal variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies. Student’s t-tests were computed for the comparison of mean values. Logistic regression analysis was used to find independent factors associated with mobbing. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were computed from the logistic regression analysis results. Multiple linear regression analysis was used with SF-36 dimensions as dependents and scores of harassment behaviors. The regression equation included terms of participants’ demographical and occupational characteristics. Adjusted regression coefficients (β) with standard errors (SE) were computed from the linear regression analysis results. The analyses regarding the scores of harassment behaviors were analyzed with logarithmic transformation due to the lack of normality in their distribution. All reported p values are two-tailed. Statistical significance was at p < 0.05. Analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software (version 22.0).

3 Results

Overall, 343 healthcare professionals agreed to compete with the survey (response rate of 85.8%). The mean age of the entire sample was 43.1 years (SD = 8.9 years). Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample. Most of the participants were women (67.0%), married (53.2%), and university alumni (52.2%). Also, 47.8% of the participants were nurse/paramedical personnel, and 12.0% had a responsible position. Table 2 presents the harassment behaviors that participants faced in their working environment. The mean number of actions regarding harassment of freedom in speech and communication was 2.34 (SD = 2.00), and the mean number of behaviors regarding harassment of personal reputation was 1.40 (SD = 1.56). The mean number of actions regarding harassment in all sectors was 5.34 (SD = 3.99). One hundred twenty-eight participants (37.5%) had experienced mobbing, and 55.7% had experienced psychological violence in their work.

Table 1
Characteristics of the sample (N = 343)

Characteristic N (%)

Female 229 (67.0)

Age (yrs) (mean±SD) 43.1±8.9

Married 182 (53.2)

Educational status

High school at most 94 (27.6)

University 178 (52.2)

Postgraduate studies 69 (20.2)

Personnel

Medical 79 (23.0)

Nurses/ Paramedical 164 (47.8)

Administration 65 (19.0)

Technical 35 (10.2)

Responsible position 41 (12.0)

Employment

Permanent 254 (74.5)

Definite term contract 81 (23.7)

Indefinite term contract 6 (1.8)

Working years in hospital (mean±SD) 15.8±9.5

Working years in the current department

(mean±SD) 8.5±7.6

Personnel after organization merging 18 (6.2)

Characteristic	N (%)
Female	229 (67.0)
Age (yrs) (mean±SD)	43.1±8.9
Married	182 (53.2)
Educational status
High school at most	94 (27.6)
University	178 (52.2)
Postgraduate studies	69 (20.2)
Personnel
Medical	79 (23.0)
Nurses/ Paramedical	164 (47.8)
Administration	65 (19.0)
Technical	35 (10.2)
Responsible position	41 (12.0)
Employment
Permanent	254 (74.5)
Definite term contract	81 (23.7)
Indefinite term contract	6 (1.8)
Working years in hospital (mean±SD)	15.8±9.5
Working years in the current department
(mean±SD)	8.5±7.6
Personnel after organization merging	18 (6.2)

Table 2

Harassment behaviors faced in the working environment

Harassment behavior	N (%)	Score^{+ (mean±SD)}	Total score^{++(mean ^± SD)}

Freedom in speech and communication
Oral threats are made	43 (12.5)
Colleagues restrict your opportunity to express yourself	40 (11.7)
Contact is denied through looks or gestures	38 (11.1)
Your work is continuously criticized	35 (10.2)
You are yelled at and loudly scolded	34 (9.9)	2.34 ± 2.00
You are constantly interrupted	32 (9.3)
Contact is denied through innuendo	30 (8.7)
Your superior restricts you to express yourself	20 (5.8)
There is constant criticism about your personal life	11 (3.2)
You are terrorized on the telephone	8 (2.3)
Written threats are sent	7 (2.0)
Social interaction
You are treated as if you are invisible	33 (9.6)
People do not speak with you anymore	19 (5.5)
You cannot talk to anyone; Access to others is denied	5 (1.5)	0.49 ± 0.67
You are relocated to another room far away from colleagues	4 (1.2)
Colleagues are forbidden to talk with you	2 (0.6)
You are addressed only in writing	1 (0.3)
Personal reputation
Your efforts are judged in a wrong and demeaning way	32 (9.3)
People talk badly about you behind your back	27 (7.9)
You are ridiculed	26 (7.6)
Unfounded rumors about you are circulated	23 (6.7)
Your decisions are always questioned	23 (6.7)
You are called demeaning names	14 (4.1)
You are treated as if you are mentally ill	8 (2.3)	0.77 ± 0.75	5.34 ± 3.99
Your handicap is ridiculed	8 (2.3)
You are forced to do a job that affects your self-esteem	7 (2.0)
Your political or religious beliefs are ridiculed	5 (1.5)
You are forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation	3 (0.9)
People imitate your gestures, walk, or voice to ridicule you	3 (0.9)
Sexual innuendoes are present	3 (0.9)
Your nationality is ridiculed	1 (0.3)
Work status and quality of life
You are given jobs that are below your qualifications	33 (9.6)
You are continually given new tasks	33 (9.6)
You are given meaningless jobs to carry out	14 (4.1)	1.40 ± 1.56
You are given tasks that affect your self-esteem	14 (4.1)
You are given tasks way beyond your qualifications to discredit you	5 (1.5)
There are no special tasks for you	0 (0.0)
Physical health
You are forced to do a physically strenuous job	12 (3.5)
Despite your poor health, you are forced to do a physically strenuous job	10 (2.9)
Light violence is used to threaten you	10 (2.9)
Threats of physical violence are made	5 (1.5)	0.37 ± 0.60
Outright sexual harassment is present	5 (1.5)
Physical abuse is present	3 (0.9)
Causing general damages that create financial costs to you	2 (0.6)
Damaging your workplace or home	1 (0.3)

⁺Mean number of harassment behaviors experienced in each factor. ⁺⁺Mean number of harassment behaviors experienced across all factors

Multiple regression analysis for some harassment behaviors regarding freedom in speech and communication showed that, after controlling for demographics and occupational characteristics, participants with postgraduate studies had faced significantly fewer harassment behaviors regarding liberty in speech and communication than high school graduates. The participants from organizational mergers had faced considerably more of these behaviors [data not shown]. Also, participants with postgraduate education and university graduates had faced significantly fewer harassment behaviors regarding social interaction than only high school graduates. Technical personnel had faced significantly fewer harassment behaviors regarding social interaction compared to nurse/paramedical personnel, university graduates compared to participants who were high school graduates and those within a position with responsibility. The number of harassment behaviors regarding personal reputation was not significantly associated with any demographical or occupational characteristics.

Regarding physical health, substantially less harassment had been experienced by university graduates compared to high school graduates and those with responsible positions. In total, participants with postgraduate studies and university alumni had faced significantly fewer harassment behaviors in all sectors combined compared to participants who were high school graduates. In contrast, those who came from organizational mergers faced markedly more of these behaviors. Almost half the victims (49.2%) face harassment in their working environment virtually daily (Table 3). The mean duration for experiencing such actions is 85.4 months (SD = 56.2 months).

Table 3

Characteristics regarding harassment in victims’ working environment

Characteristic	N (%)
Frequency of dealing with harassment behaviors during the last 12 months
Every day	29 (22.7)
Almost every day	63 (49.2)
At least once a week	36 (28.1)
At least once a month	0 (0.0)
Rarely	0 (0.0)
For how long have you been dealing with harassment behaviors (months), mean (SD)	85.4 (56.2)
Currently dealing with harassment behaviors
Yes, up until today	120 (93.8)
No, I was dealing with them in the past in the current work environment	7 (5.5)
No, I was dealing with them in the past in previous work environment	1 (0.8)
During this time, persons who were against you were
Same level coworkers	84 (66.7)
Higher-level coworkers	74 (58.7)
Lower level coworkers	30 (23.8)
Gender of harasser
Men	18 (14.9)
Women	54 (44.6)
Both men and women	49 (40.5)
Number of persons who were against you, median (IQR)	3 (2 - 4)
Have you ever discussed with someone about facing these behaviors	87 (68.5)

Additionally, 93.8% of the participants were dealing with harassment behaviors at present. The majority of the participants dealt with such actions from coworkers of the same or higher level. The median number of harassers was 3 (IQR: 2-4), and the harassers were mainly women. Of the victims, 68.5% had discussed that they were facing these behaviors with someone.

Table 4 presents the results from multiple logistic regression analyses with mobbing as a dependent variable. According to the table, women had a 2.60 times greater probability of dealing with mobbing than men. Also, technical personnel had almost four times greater likelihood of experiencing mobbing than nurse/ paramedical personnel. Moreover, after controlling for participants’ demographics and occupational characteristics, facing more harassment behaviors regarding work status and quality of life was associated with significantly lower scores in role physical, emotional role, and the mental component summary score, indicating worsening physical role, worse emotional position and worse mental health in total [data not shown]. Participants who had experienced Mobbing had significantly worse quality of life in all sectors and capacities (Table 5). The results were similar when the demographics and occupational characteristics of the participants were adjusted.

Table 4

Multiple logistic regression results for odds of experiencing mobbing

	OR (95% CI)⁺	P
Gender
Men (reference)
Women	2.60 (1.36 –4.98)	0.004
Age	1.02 (0.96 –1.08)	0.588
Married
No (reference)
Yes	0.97 (0.56 –1.67)	0.910
Educational status
High school at most (reference)
University	1.67 (0.85 –3.27)	0.135
Postgraduate studies	1.87 (0.82 –4.24)	0.135
Personnel
Nurse/ Paramedical (reference)
Medical	1.19 (0.50 –2.84)	0.701
Administration	1.78 (0.87 –3.62)	0.112
Technical	3.97 (1.49 –10.54)	0.006
Responsible position
No (reference)
Yes	0.56 (0.21 –1.53)	0.257
Employment
Permanent (reference)
Definite/Indefinite term contract	0.50 (0.20 –1.24)	0.133
Working years in hospital	1.02 (0.97 –1.08)	0.439
Working years in current department	0.99 (0.95 –1.03)	0.530
Personnel after organization merging
No (reference)
Yes	0.86 (0.29 –2.50)	0.778

⁺Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval).

Table 5

Participants’ SF-36 scores

Dimension	Victim of mobbing (mean (SD)		P Student’s t-test	β (SE)⁺	P
	No	Yes
Physical functioning	85.8 (18.4)	75.0 (23.3)	<0.001	-9.24 (2.47)	<0.001
Role physical	75.8 (34.8)	57.4 (37.7)	<0.001	-15.59 (4.92)	0.002
Bodily pain	67.5 (24.2)	57.1 (28.3)	<0.001	-9.24 (3.08)	0.003
General health	66.2 (17)	58.2 (19.6)	<0.001	-7.31 (2.46)	0.003
Vitality	59.4 (17.3)	49.2 (20.3)	<0.001	-8.40 (2.44)	0.001
Social functioning	70.2 (22.5)	58.2 (24.7)	<0.001	-9.53 (3.03)	0.002
Role emotional	78.3 (32.7)	58.2 (40.1)	<0.001	-19.00 (4.74)	<0.001
Mental health	64 (16.9)	55.5 (17.6)	<0.001	-8.54 (2.31)	<0.001
PCS	49.3 (7.6)	45.5 (9.6)	<0.001	-2.87 (1.10)	0.010
MCS	45.9 (8.9)	40.2 (10.6)	<0.001	-5.48 (1.37)	<0.001

⁺Regression coefficients (standard error) after adjusting for demographics and occupational characteristics.

4 Discussion

This study recorded the incidence of workplace harassment among 343 employees in various services of five large Public Hospitals of Athens and investigated how this negative phenomenon affected their HRQoL. The analysis and assessment of the results were based on Leymann’s definition, according to which mobbing is a bullying behavior at the workplace that is systematically directed towards a single person by one or more people, frequently (at least once a week) or over a long time (over six months) [10]. According to the survey results, over one-third of the study participants from the five Hospitals (37.5%) had been on the receiving end of at least one mobbing behavior, which is a quiet percentage overall. The research of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, carried out in Greece in 2015, showed that 12% of the workers had suffered from work [46]. Our study recorded behaviors that constitute professional bullying at a higher rate than the European average (14%) recorded by Eurofound.

It is worth mentioning that the third European survey [47] conducted by Paoli and Merllie on behalf of Eurofound in 2000 showed that 9% of the European Union workers had suffered from job harassment over the last 12 months. This survey also reflected the difference in rates of bullying between the northern and southern EU countries. Finland (15%), the United Kingdom (14%), and Sweden (12%) exhibited the higher mobbing percentages, while in the Mediterranean countries (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece), this percentage was about 4-5% [47]. At the same time, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights survey showed that moral harassment at work was 31% in Bulgaria, 22% in Lebanon, 21% in South Africa, 15% in Brazil, and 10% in Australia Thailand [48]. In 2011, a global poll among 16,517 workers found that 64% of the workers had fallen victim to mobbing, while 16% admitted that they were witnesses of mobbing to their colleagues [49]. It has been suggested that the cultural differences between hospitals generate differences in harassment prevalence and perpetrators [50].

Similarly, according to Hoel et al., a percentage of 10.6% of the workers in Great Britain admitted to experience behaviours of psychological violence, which supports the criteria of Leymann [51]. In Turkey, researchers recorded a high rate (31.1%) of occupational bullying among workers in primary healthcare [52]. Health professions appear to be among the most affected by intimidating behavior [48]. The present research results show that nurses have encountered more aggressive bullying behaviors in social contacts than technical personnel. Nursing staff also met significantly more harassment behaviors according to Leymann’s scale of physical health compared to participants who held administrative positions.

Many international studies have used Leymann’s questionnaire and typology to identify mobbing syndrome among health professionals. A Brazilian study showed that 11.6% of the nurses experienced systematic work harassment during the last 12 months [53]. In Portugal, 13% of the nurses working in public hospitals reported psychological violence [54]. A relevant Greek study reported that 30.2% of the nurses experienced psychological harassment [55]. The above results may be justified by the structure of the healthcare workplace, which is occupied mainly by women who, based on previous research, are more often the perpetrators of bullying and intimidate primarily other women. At the same time, men tend to intimidate both genders [56].

In contrast, the 2017 Review of the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) showed that 70% of harassers were male, following the results of other similar international studies [57]. This study shows that the sex of the mobbing abuser in the public hospitals studied is 45% female. The response to the question “What was the gender of the person(s) who were against you” showed an increase in the percentage of women who practiced psychological violence by 40.5%. A percentage of 14.9% of the participants received psychological harassment from men at work.

Studies that used Leymann’s questionnaire and the sex of the abuser also consider the position of the perpetrator in the workgroup. Our survey showed that 66.7% of the workers suffering psychological work-related violence did so from coworkers at the same hierarchical level (horizontal harassment) and 58.7% from their supervisor (top-down harassment). In public hospitals, upwards harassment is also present, with 23.8% of the employees receiving bullying by subordinates. The majority of the literature concludes that psychological harassment is mainly practiced from the upper hierarchical levels to the lower ones. For example, one study showed that 74.7% of the harassment came from the supervisors, compared with 36.7% by peers and 6.7% by subordinates [51]. The largest proportion of harassing supervisors was recorded in Turkey, reaching 70.3% [52]. Nurses are almost equally bullied by supervisors and doctors and from patients and their families and subordinate assistant nurses [58].

By investigating the association between experiencing mobbing (dependent variable) and demographic and work-related data (independent variables), our study showed that women were 2.60 times more likely to have been mobbed than men. Some researchers suggest no correlation between the victim’s gender and psychological harassment and that the recipients are equally distributed between the genders [56 , 60]. However, other studies have shown the important role of gender differences when predicting bullying at work [61]. According to Hirigoyen [62], however, mobbing affects mostly women (70%). Mobbing behaviors related to freedom of expression and communication appear to be the most common among healthcare workers, according to evidence from a study in which 79.5% of the victims received at least one behaviour that falls under these categories, based on the typology of Leymann’s questionnaire. In the same survey, 64.7% were bullying behaviours that threatened personal reputation, 57.2% of those were affecting occupational status and quality of life, 48.9% were behaviours that negatively affect social contacts, and 31.3% were threatening actions against the physical health of the victims [63].

Using the SF-36 questionnaire, HRQoL was reported, and dimension scores were computed for the entire sample, regardless of the respondents had reported being victims of workplace harassment or not. The results indicated a deterioration in all health dimensions, compared to the average scores reported obtained from an earlier Greek study using the same instrument on a similar-sized sample of workers in the Greek health care system [64]. In the present study, the worker’s separation into those having received mobbing and those not highlighted the negative effect of the mobbing syndrome on the HRQoL of the victims, as the differences in the average scores of some dimensions reached approximately 20 points (0–100 scale). In the “harassed” subsample, correlations among SF-36 dimensions and harassment behaviors showed less harassment was linked to better physical health and mental health. The linear multiple regression models using each time the SF-36 dimensions as dependent variables showed that the two SF-36 role dimensions, i.e., physical and emotional, had a significant relationship with the harassment behaviours.

This study has some limitations that should be taken into consideration. Firstly, its cross-sectional design outlines bullying behaviors among the Greek NHS hospitals’ health care workers within a given timeframe. As these behaviors are subject to drastic changes and alterations over time, the findings’ validity is time-sensitive. Furthermore, the sample consisted of workers from five Athens-based hospitals, i.e., an urban population, and thus it is not possible to generalize the results to the entire public health sector in Greece.

5 Conclusion

This research has provided evidence on mobbing in Greek public hospitals and that workplace harassment negatively affects HRQoL. Since a healthy working population is usually more efficient, preventing workplace harassment should be high on policymakers’ agendas to improve human resource management and health system performance.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Open University of Cyprus and the Research and Ethics Committees of the participating hospitals.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

Einarsen

. Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2000;5(4):379–401.

Hamdan

, Hamra

AaA

. Burnout among workers in emergency Departments in Palestinian hospitals: prevalence and associated factors. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17(1):407.

Sahebi

, Golitaleb

, Jahangiri

. Occupational Burnout in Pre-Hospital Emergency Personnel in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2021;26(1):11–7.

Durand

, Bompard

, Sportiello

, Michelet

, Gentile

. Stress and burnout among professionals working in the emergency department in a French university hospital: Prevalence and associated factors. Work (Reading, Mass). 2019;63(1):57–67.

Takaki

, Taniguchi

, Hirokawa

. Associations of Workplace Bullying and Harassment with Pain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013;10(10):4560–70.

Yoo

, Ahn

. Nurses’ Workplace Bullying Experiences, Responses, and Ways of Coping. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(19):7052.

Ferretti

, Gualtieri

, Carabellese

, Gusinu

, Masti

, Pozza

, et al. Aggression toward healthcare workers: the effect of indirect victimization on burnout dimensions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2020:1-11.

Hamzaoglu

, Yayak

, Turk

. Evaluation of mobbing perception levels of health employees. Health Services Management Research. 2021:09514848211001689.

Leymann

. The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 1996;5(2):165–84.

10.

Leymann

, Gustafsson

. Mobbing at work and the development of post-traumatic stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 1996;5(2):251–75.

11.

Leymann

. Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims. 1990;5(2):119–26.

12.

Campo

, Klijn

. Verbal abuse and mobbing in prehospital care services in Chile. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2018;25.

13.

Cengiz

, Demirbag

, Yiıldizlar

. The effect of mobbing inworkplace on professional self-esteem of nurses. InternationalJournal of Caring Sciences. 2018;11(2):1241–6.

14.

Nikolić

, Visnjić

. Mobbing and violence at work ashidden stressors and work ability among emergency medical doctors inserbia. Medicina. 2020;56(1):31.

15.

Zhang

, Wang

, Liu

, Meng

, Wang

, Zhao

, et al. Does abusive supervision lead nurses to suffer from workplace violence? A cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2021.

16.

Ruíz-Gonzalez

, Pacheco-P

, García-Bencomo

, Diez

, Guevara-Valtier

. Mobbingperception among intensive care unit nurses. EnfermeríaIntensiva (English ed). 2020;31(3):113–9.

17.

Sousa

LSD

, Oliveira

, Santiago

JCDS

, Bandeira

ÉdS

, Brito

YCF

, Alves

HFA

, et al. Predictors of moral harassment in nursing work in critical care units. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem. 2021;74.

18.

Babaee

, Nojomi

, Asadi-Aliabadi

, Eshrati

. Bullying and Being Bullied; How Much Can It Increase the Risk of Depression and Anxiety in Students? A Multilevel Fixed-effect Model Analysis. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2021;15(2).

19.

Arnetz

, Fitzpatrick

, Cotten

, Jodoin

, Chang

. Workplace Bullying Among Nurses: Developing a Model for Intervention. Violence Vict. 2019;34(2):346–62.

20.

Galanaki

, Papalexandris

, editors. ExploringWorkplace Bullying in Greece: Frequency of occurrence and handling of measurement issues, under the light of previous research findings at the international level. European Academy of Management Conference: Management Culture in the 21st Century; 2011.

21.

Lutgen-Sandvik

, Tracy

, Alberts

. Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies. 2007;44(6):837–62.

22.

Pihl

, Albertsen

, Hogh

, Andersen

LPS

. Social capital and workplace bullying. Work (Reading, Mass). 2017;57(4):535–45.

23.

Sroka

, Vveinhardt

. Is a CSR Policy an Equally Effective Vaccine Against Workplace Mobbing and Psychosocial Stressors? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(19):7292.

24.

Alfano

, Ramaci

, Landolfi

, Lo Presti

, Barattucci

. Gender Patterns in Mobbing Victims: Differences in Negative Act Perceptions, MMPI Personality Profile, Perceived Quality of Life, and Suicide Risk. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(4):2192.

25.

Lorenz K On aggression: Psychology Press; 2002.

26.

Milutinović

, Prokes

, Gavrilov-Jerković

, Filipović

. Mobbing: special reference to the nursingprofession. Medicinski Pregled. 2009;62(11-12):529–33.

27.

Einarsen

, Matthiesen

, Skogstad

. Bullying, burnout and well-being among assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand. 1998;14:563–8.

28.

Hegney

, Plank

, Parker

. Workplace violence in nursing in Queensland, Australia: A self-reported study. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2003;9(4):261–8.

29.

Keashly

. Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 1997;1(1):85–117.

30.

Ferrari

. Raising Awareness on Women Victims of Mobbing: The Italian Contribution. Daphne program, European Commission. 2004.

31.

Wheeler

, Halbesleben

, Shanine

. Eating their cake and everyone else’s cake, too: Resources as the main ingredient to workplace bullying. Business Horizons. 2010;53(6):553–60.

32.

Salin

. Bullying and harassment at work. 2003.

33.

Brewer

, Kovner

, Obeidat

, Budin

. Positive work environments of early-career registered nurses and the correlation with physician verbal abuse. Nursing Outlook. 2013;61(6):408–16.

34.

Notelaers

. bullying: A risk Control Perspective. 2011.

35.

Brewer

. Workplace bullying in healthcare professions. International Journal of Occupational Health and Public Health Nursing. 2015.

36.

Andrews

, Whitney

Social indicators of well-being: The development of the measurement of perceptual indicators. New York. Plenum Press; 1976.

37.

Calaminus

, Barr

. Economic evaluation and health-related quality of life. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2008;50(S5):1112–5.

38.

Di Martino

, Hoel

, Cooper

. Preventing violence and harassment in the workplace: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 2003.

39.

Zachariadou

, Zannetos

, Chira

, Gregoriou

, Pavlakis

. Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying among health-care professionals in Cyprus: Greek version of “Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror” Instrument. Safety and Health at Work. 2018;9(3):339–46.

40.

Carnero

, Martínez

, Sanchez-Mangas

. Mobbingand its determinants: the case of Spain. Applied Economics. 2010;42(29):3777–87.

41.

Korukcu

, Bulut

, Tuzcu

, Bayram

, ÖZTÜRKTÜRKMEN

. An adaptation of Leymann Inventory of PsychologicalTerror to health sciences programs in Turkey. Anatolian Journal ofPsychiatry/Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2014;15(4):335–43.

42.

Ware

Jr , Sherbourne

. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992:473-83.

43.

Ware

, Snow

, Kosinski

, Gandek

. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center. 1993;2016.

44.

Ware

, Kosinski

, Keller

. SF-36 physical and mental ealth summary scales: a user’s manual: Health Assessment Lab. 1994.

45.

Pappa

, Kontodimopoulos

, Niakas

. Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey. Quality of Life Research. 2005;14(5):1433–8.

46.

Giaccone

, Di Nunzio

, Fromm

, Vargas

. Violence and harassment in European workplaces: Causes, impacts and policies. Dublin: Eurofound. 2015.

47.

Paoli

, Merlie

Third European survey on working conditions 2000 Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 2001.

48.

Chappell

, Di Martino

. Violence at work: International Labour Organization. 2006.

49.

Living EFftIo, Conditions W. 5th European working conditions survey: Publications Office of the European Union; 2015.

50.

Andersen

, Aasland

, Fridner

, Lövseth

. Harassment among university hospital physicians in four European cities. Results from a cross-sectional study in Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Italy (the HOUPE study). Work (Reading, Mass). 2010;37(1):99–110.

51.

Hoel

, Cooper

, Faragher

. The experience of bullying in Great Britain The impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2001;10(4):443–65

52.

Picakciefe

, Acar

, Colak

, Kilic

. The relationship between sociodemographic characteristics, work conditions, and level of “mobbing” of health workers in primary health care. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2017;32(3):373–98.

53.

Fontes

, Santana

, Pelloso

, Carvalho

MDdB

. Factors associated with bullying at nurses’ workplaces. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem. 2013;21(3):758–64.

54.

, Fleming

. Bullying, burnout, and mental health amongst Portuguese nurses. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2008;29(4):411–26.

55.

Karatza

, Zyga

, Tziaferi

, Prezerakos

. Workplace bullying and general health status among the nursing staff of Greek public hospitals. Annals of General Psychiatry. 2016;15(1):1–7.

56.

Einarsen

, Hoel

, Zapf

, Cooper

. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice: CRC Press. 2010.

57.

Einarsen

, Raknes

. Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims. 1997;12(3):247–63.

58.

Sauer

. Does resilience mediate the effects of bullying in nurses? : University of North Carolina at Greensboro. 2013.

59.

Dikmetas

, Top

, Ergin

. An examination of mobbing andburnout of residents. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2011;22(3):137–49.

60.

Vartia

. The sources of bullying–psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 1996;5(2):203–14.

61.

Wang

, Hsieh

. Do gender differences matter to workplace bullying? Work (Reading, Mass) 2015;53(3):631–8.

62.

Hirigoyen

Psychological harassment in the workplace (1st ed.). Athens: Patakis. 2002.

63.

Sahin

, Cetin

, Cimen

. Assessment of Turkish junior male physicians’ exposure to mobbing behavior. Croatian Medical Journal. 2012;53(4):357–66.

64.

Tountas

, Demakakos

, Yfantopoulos

, Aga

, Houliara

, Pavi

. The health related quality of life of the employees in the Greek hospitals: assessing how healthy are the health workers. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):61.