Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:45:02.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Perceived organizational support moderates the effect of job demands on outcomes: Testing the JD-R model in Italian oncology nurses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2024

Tiziana Ramaci
Affiliation:
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy
Giuseppe Santisi
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
Krizia Curatolo
Affiliation:
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy
Massimiliano Barattucci*
Affiliation:
Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
*
Corresponding author: Massimiliano Barattucci; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The research aimed to test the job demands-resources (JD-R) model on a sample of Italian oncology workers, and the role of perceived organizational support (POS) as a moderator of the effects of JD on outcomes (job satisfaction and burnout [BO]).

Methods

Based on the JD-R model, a correlational study was designed to investigate the relationships between JD, POS as a job resource, self-esteem (as a personal resource), and job outcomes (BO and job satisfaction); the research involved a sample of oncology nurses (N = 235) from an Italian public hospital, who completed a questionnaire during working hours. Relationships between variables were investigated with multiple regressions and moderation analysis.

Results

Results confirmed that JD predict both BO and job satisfaction; POS is a weak predictor of job outcomes, but its mediator role in the JD-outcomes relationship was confirmed: the more the nurses perceive a supportive organization, the weaker the positive relationship between JD and BO.

Significance of results

Findings are consistent with other contributions that highlighted that organizational job resources may attenuate the adverse effect of JD on positive and negative outcomes: POS may play a central role in employee well-being and health, acting as a possible moderator, and somehow defusing the positive association between JD and outcomes.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Nurses in health-care environments, in daily contact with suffering patients, terminal situations, and impacting treatments, are one of the categories most exposed to the risk of work stress, turnover, dissatisfaction, and burnout (BO) (e.g., Gama et al. Reference Gama, Barbosa and Vieira2014; Gómez-Urquiza et al. Reference Gómez-Urquiza, Albendín-García and Velando-Soriano2020; Jennings Reference Jennings and Hughes2008); the main organizational determinants of negative work outcomes among healthcare workers (HCWs) include the quality of working conditions, interpersonal relationships, role conflict, and high work demands (e.g., Gómez-Urquiza et al. Reference Gómez-Urquiza, Albendín-García and Velando-Soriano2020; Maslach et al. Reference Maslach, Schaufeli and Michael2001; Rizo-Baeza et al. Reference Rizo-Baeza, Mendiola-Infante and Sepehri2018); among the organizational factors that are instead considered protective of negative outcomes, employee perception of how attentive the organization is in evaluating and enhancing both the contributions received from its workers and their state of well-being (perceived organizational support [POS]) appears to have a relevant role (Bao and Zhong Reference Bao and Zhong2019; Xu and Yang Reference Xu and Yang2021; Yi et al. Reference Yi, Kim and Akter2018; Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Zhang and Chen2020).

Numerous studies have explored the role of cognitive and emotional demands and resources on workers’ outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion, commitment, job satisfaction, etc.) within the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (e.g., Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017; Li et al. Reference Li, Tuckey and Bakker2022).

The model (Schaufeli and Taris Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014; Xanthopoulou et al. Reference Xanthopoulou, Bakker and Demerouti2012) hypothesizes the development of job strain and BO when the individual perceives an imbalance between JD and resources at work (Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017); the JD-R model, furthermore, theorizes that work outcomes are the result of the interaction between work demands and resources (i.e., support) to deal with them.

Based on the JD-R model, correlational research was designed with the participation of a homogeneous sample of oncology nurses from an Italian public hospital, who filled out a questionnaire that investigated the relationships between JD, POS, intended as job resource, self-esteem, as personal resource, and job outcomes (BO and job satisfaction). More specifically, as regards the theoretical contribution, the research aimed to test the JD-R model on the sample of Italian oncology workers, and the role of POS as a moderator of the effects of JD on outcomes.

The results of the research can provide indications both for the development of practices for managerial and peer support, the implementation of policies for the prevention of BO (e.g., training, empowerment, prevention, team building, operational solutions, etc.), and one-to-one support tools (e.g., sick days, absences, turnover, etc.) (Ahmad et al. Reference Ahmad, Barattucci and Ramayah2022; Crawford et al. Reference Crawford, LePine and Rich2010; Serban et al. Reference Serban, Rubenstein and Bosco2022).

JD-R model in the oncology setting

The JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017; Brauchli et al. Reference Brauchli, Jenny and Füllemann2015) is one of the most used conceptual frameworks in the study of the relationship between organizational factors, personal factors, and job outcomes. According to this model, the work environment is composed of: (a) JD (physical, social, and organizational factors that require effort and costs) (Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017; Bakker and de Vries Reference Bakker and de Vries2021) which are not necessarily negative but may require an activation effort; (b) job resources which represent a set of variables of different nature (organizational, relational, and psychological) that have a positive relationship with work outcomes, but an inverse relationship with work demands (Bakker et al. Reference Bakker, Hakanen and Demerouti2007; Broetje et al. Reference Broetje, Jenny and Bauer2020).

There are a limited number of studies that have used the JD-R model on samples of oncology HCWs, despite this being one of the categories with the highest levels of JD (Costeira et al. Reference Costeira, Ventura and Pais2022; Wazqar Reference Wazqar2018), BO, and dissatisfaction (Adil and Baig Reference Adil and Baig2018; Lazarescu et al. Reference Lazarescu, Dubray and Joulakian2018).

Job resources and the role of perceived organization support

Recent studies underline that POS, as an organizational resource (Kurtessis et al. Reference Kurtessis, Eisenberger and Ford2017; Lee and Peccei Reference Lee and Peccei2007), may impact work outcomes, and play a role in perceptions related to JD.

The POS represents the set of perceptions of the worker relating to how attentive the organization is to the aspects of well-being, operational support, and staff development (Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Zhang and Chen2020). Organizational support theory (Caesens and Stinglhamber Reference Caesens and Stinglhamber2020; Rhoades and Eisenberger Reference Rhoades and Eisenberger2002) theorizes that perceptions of support are determined not only by aspects of operational management support, but also by environmental, remuneration, and fairness aspects.

In HCWs, a high level of POS seems generally associated with better job outcomes and a positive psychological state (e.g., Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Zhang and Chen2020), lower strain symptoms such as anxiety, fatigue, and BO (Grama and Băiaș Reference Grama and Băiaș2018; Lecca et al. Reference Lecca, Finstad and Traversini2020; Rhoades and Eisenberger Reference Rhoades and Eisenberger2002; Wu et al. Reference Wu, Singh-Carlson and Odell2016), and higher job satisfaction (Canboy et al. Reference Canboy, Tillou and Barzantny2021; Kurtessis et al. Reference Kurtessis, Eisenberger and Ford2017). Similar indications have been provided by other research on nurses in public and private hospitals (Özyer et al. Reference Özyer, Berk and Polatcı2016; Riggle et al. Reference Riggle, Edmondson and Hansenc2009); however, few studies have explored the relationship between POS and job outcomes in oncology workers (Guveli et al. Reference Guveli, Anuk and Oflaz2015; Head et al. Reference Head, Middleton and Zeigler2019; Yi et al. Reference Yi, Kim and Akter2018).

Referring to recent evolutions of the JD-R model, furthermore, some job resources seem to have a possible moderating role on the effects of JD on outcomes (e.g., Bao and Zhong Reference Bao and Zhong2019; Tummers and Bakker Reference Tummers and Bakker2021; Xu and Yang Reference Xu and Yang2021); however, very few contributions on the health-care sector have tested it, and equally few with a sample of nurses; since several studies in other work sectors have confirmed the role of POS as a possible moderator between some organizational determinants of stress and outcomes, it appears useful to explore these relationships in samples of oncology nurses (Canboy et al. Reference Canboy, Tillou and Barzantny2021; Serban et al. Reference Serban, Rubenstein and Bosco2022).

Personal resources: The role of self-esteem

Among the so-called personal resources, self-esteem has developed some interest in the JD-R model of work outcomes; HCWs with higher self-esteem seem to better cope with job stress, as having a healthy confidence in one’s skills and self-concept helps them to put in place efficient stress management with clarity and composure of thought. Since it is clear that self-esteem affects the way people consider themselves, and influences their professional development, some studies have investigated its relationship with work outcomes (Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Jayappa and James2020; Kupcewicz and Jóźwik Reference Kupcewicz and Jóźwik2020; Molero Jurado et al. Reference Molero Jurado, Pérez-Fuentes and Gázquez Linares2018). In HCWs,self-esteem is proven to be positively associated with job satisfaction (Lee and Peccei Reference Lee and Peccei2007), as well as for intensive care unit nurses (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Zhang and Chang2017); nevertheless, no research has yet examined the role of self-esteem on the outcomes of oncology nurses. Based on the above-described framework and rationale (Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017), the present research integrated insights provided by literature (Serban et al. Reference Serban, Rubenstein and Bosco2022; Turnell et al. Reference Turnell, Rasmussen and Butow2016; Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Zhang and Chen2020) in a model in which JD, POS (as an organizational resource), and self-esteem (as a personal resource) are considered as antecedents, and BO and job satisfaction as the outcomes (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Tested conceptual model (the colored lines refer to moderated effects): moderation model in which the effect of both determinants (JD and POS) on outcomes is moderated by the other determinant.

Given the assumptions of the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017), and based on the evidence provided in the literature, we, therefore, hypothesized as follows:

Hp1: Job demands will significantly predict job outcomes; more specifically, we expect that high levels of JD will positively predict high BO levels (Hp1a), and negatively high job satisfaction levels (Hp1b).

Overall, from a review of the literature, it is clear that in HCWs, support from colleagues and from management is negatively associated with BO (Rizo-Baeza et al. Reference Rizo-Baeza, Mendiola-Infante and Sepehri2018; Wazqar Reference Wazqar2018), and positively with job satisfaction (Assiri et al. Reference Assiri, Shehata and Assiri2020; Courtnage et al. Reference Courtnage, Bates and Armstrong2020; Kitajima et al. Reference Kitajima, Miyata and Tamura2020). Consequently, it seems correct to assume that:

Hp2: POS will significantly predict job outcomes; more specifically, we hypothesize that high levels of POS will negatively predict high BO levels (Hp1a), and positively high job satisfaction levels (Hp2b).

Based on the indications provided by the theoretical framework and previous research (Costeira et al. Reference Costeira, Ventura and Pais2022; Gama et al. Reference Gama, Barbosa and Vieira2014), it is possible to assume that:

Hp3: Self-esteem will significantly predict job outcomes; more specifically, we hypothesize that high levels of self-esteem will negatively predict high BO levels (Hp3a), and positively high job satisfaction levels (Hp3b).

As a result of the abovementioned indications and again referring to the JD-R model, we hypothesized as follows:

Hp4: The interaction effect of JD × POS will be significant both for BO (Hp4a) and job satisfaction (Hp4b). The association between JD and outcomes will vary as a function of POS levels. The tested model and research assumptions are shown in Figure 1.

Methods

Research design

This research adopts a quantitative approach with a cross-sectional design.

Participants

The Italian National Health Service guarantees health care for cancer patients, the provision of palliative care, and through collaboration with the rich network of voluntary associations, also guarantees home care. The hospital, with over 1500 employees, operates in an area with a high population density. The oncology department is organized into 3 services: an oncology hospital, an operational unit, and a hospice.

Measures

Participants completed the first section of the questionnaire with sociodemographic information and then they filled out a questionnaire made up of the following measures:

The POS scale, originally developed by Eisenberger et al. (Reference Eisenberger, Wang and Mesdaghinia2014), and based on literature indications (the majority of studies on POS use a short form developed from the 17 highest-loading items in the POS; Eisenberger et al. Reference Eisenberger, Shanock and Wen2020), is a scale that measures the perceptions of beneficial treatment received by employees (e.g., “The organization where I work cares about my mental and physical well-being”). In the present study, POS was measured by the Italian version (8 items) (Di Stefano et al. Reference Di Stefano, Venza and Aiello2020; Muse and Stamper Reference Muse and Stamper2007). All items were on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .95.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg Reference Rosenberg1965; Italian adaptation by Sartirana et al. Reference Sartirana, Camporese and Dalle Grave2013), is a 10-item scale that estimates global self-worth by measuring positive and negative feelings about the self (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”). Items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale format ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .79.

The Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQoL; Stamm Reference Stamm2009; Italian adaptation by Palestini et al. Reference Palestini, Prati and Pietrantoni2009), aims to gauge the professional quality of life, through the measurement of 3 aspects of professional quality of life: compassion satisfaction (CS), compassion fatigue, and BO. In the present study, only the CS and BO dimensions of the ProQOL were utilized. The satisfaction subscale (8 items) measures the employees’ satisfaction with their ability (e.g., “My work makes me feel satisfied”). The BO subscale (7 items) measures if the worker is experiencing symptoms of BO (e.g., “I feel worn out because of my work”). Items were rated on a 5-point scale. Participants were asked: in the last month how many times, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for CS was .86, and .88 for BO.

JD were measured with a scale from the literature (Bakker and Demerouti Reference Bakker and Demerouti2017; Lesener et al. Reference Lesener, Gusy and Wolter2019), that measures work pressure and emotional demands. (e.g., “I have to work very fast/my job requires me to keep a lot of information in mind at once”). In the present study, JD was measured by the Job Demands Italian 27-item scale version (De Carlo et al. Reference De Carlo, Falco and Capozza2008). The items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree.) The scale is believed to be unidimensional. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .83.

Sociodemographic variables, participants were asked to give information on their sociodemographic characteristics, such as gender, age, education, marital status, shift work, and seniority.

In order to address response bias and common method variance, we recurred to the suggested methods in literature (Baumgartner et al. Reference Baumgartner, Weijters and Pieters2021; Kock et al. Reference Kock, Berbekova and Assaf2021; Podsakoff et al. Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Lee2003) and various scale endpoints and formats for the measured variables were used to reduce method biases caused by commonalities in scale endpoints and anchoring effects, and scales were graphically separated.

Data analyses

The analytical approach was correlational. Cronbach’s alphas and zero-order correlations were used to assess the scales’ internal consistencies and examine associations between pairs of continuous variables; with the purpose of exploring the differences in the measured variables related to sociodemographic and work variables, independent sample t-tests, Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs), and correlational analysis were carried out, using IBM SPSS 23. Relationships between measured variables were examined through correlation analysis and multiple regressions, using SPSS 23 and SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.3.

More specifically, 2 moderation analyses were run to verify whether POS moderated the relationship between JD (and vice versa) and outcomes (BO and job satisfaction). For each analysis, PROCESS model number 1 with the macro developed by Hayes was run, estimating the relationship between the predictor and the criterion at low, medium, and high levels; the PROCESS macro allows bootstrapping (Hayes Reference Hayes2018), a nonparametric resampling procedure that does not assume normality and involves the extraction of several thousand subsamples (5000, in the present case) from a dataset. Through bootstrapping, the distribution of effects is empirically approximated and used for calculating confidence intervals (Preacher and Hayes Reference Preacher and Hayes2004). For each association, the unstandardized B coefficient along with the 90% lower and upper limits of its respective confidence interval will be provided. Interactions were probed through the Johnson–Neyman technique. This technique provides a region of significance of the effect of X on Y; that is, it provides a continuum where the conditional effect of X on Y transitions between statistically significant and not significant at the alpha level of significance (Hayes Reference Hayes2018).

Results

Recruitment

The hospital was approached through a formal request to participate in the project, which was presented to managers and the head of the unit. A project on “Work-related stress and organizational resources” dedicated to all the nurses (N = 275) in the oncology ward of a Sicilian public hospital started in June 2021; a cross-sectional study was then carried out from 10 September 2022 to the end of December 2023, involving 262 voluntarily participating nurses from 3 different units: oncology hospital, hospice, and operational unit, from the same geographical area (Southern Italy) (Table 1). At the end of a short training meeting conducted by 2 researchers relating to the aforementioned project, during working hours, the nurses were given a paper and pencil questionnaire to complete and return in 5 days. A link was sent to complete the questionnaire online via Google form to those absent from the meeting. Missing data treatment was necessary (questionnaires completed with a missing percentage greater than 5%) and reduced the final analysis sample from 262 to 235 nurses.

Table 1. Sample description

Descriptives

The final analysis sample was made up of 235 nurses working in the oncology ward of a Sicilian public hospital, mostly in the hospice (N = 145, 62.7%), who completed the questionnaire in full. The sample was fairly balanced by gender (N = 124 women, 52.4%), with an average age of 46.47 years (SD = 8.36), mostly married (N = 164, 69.9%), with children (N = 176, 74.9%), and graduates (N = 127, 54.2%). Nurses mainly worked shifts (N = 209, 89.3%), including night shifts (N = 158, 67.5%), and the average seniority was 14.1 years (SD = 9.2).

No gender differences occurred for any of the variables, and no relationships between age or seniority and measured variables resulted from statistical analyses. Moreover, the ANOVA did not reveal any significant differences between groups regarding the level of education, marital status, and work structure for any of the considered variables. A barely significant difference between nurses with night and day shifts was found for JD (t 233 = −2.1; p < .05; day shift, mean = 4.02, SD = .98; night shift, mean = 4.39, SD = .87).

Correlational analysis

JD resulted significantly positively correlated with BO and negatively with job satisfaction; moreover, both POS and self-esteem were significantly negatively correlated with BO and positively with job satisfaction. Table 2 depicts descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and correlations between measured variables

Note: r, Pearson correlation coefficient;

* p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Regression analysis

With the aim of testing hypotheses, 2 multiple linear regressions including BO and job satisfaction as criterion variables, JD, POS, and self-esteem as main predictors, were performed (Table 3).

BO was positively predicted by JD, and negatively by POS and self-esteem, confirming hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a. The interaction term (POS × JD) was statistically significant (Table 3), therefore, confirming hypothesis 4a. Predictors explained about 27% of the BO’s variance.

Table 3. Outcomes regressed on measured antecedents

Note:

** p < .01, ***p < .001.

Regression analysis revealed that job satisfaction was positively predicted by POS and self-esteem, and negatively by JD, thus confirming hypothesis 1b, 2b, and 3b. The interaction term (POS × JD) was statistically significant, confirming hypothesis 4b. Predictors explained about 23% of the job satisfaction’s variance.

Moderation role of POS between JD and outcomes

The interaction between JD and POS, with respect to outcomes, was probed through the Johnson–Neyman technique (value = 30.03). The positive association between JD and BO was significant at low (b = .69, CI: [.379, 1.011]) and medium levels of POS (b = .43, CI: [.246, .631], while it was not significant at high levels of POS (b = .22, CI: [−.016, .464]) (Table 4 and Figure 2); the overall equation was significant (R 2 = .16; F (3, 230) = 33.01; p < .000), and the JD by POS interaction significantly increased the explained variance (R 2 change = .027, F (1, 232) = 5.40; p = .021). This outcome indicates that the more the nurses perceive a supportive organization, the weaker the positive relationship between JD and BO (Figure 2).

Table 4. Result of regression analysis concerning the moderation effect of POS on the job demands-burnout relationship and the conditional influence of POS based on the Johnson–Neyman technique

Figure 2. The association between job demands and burnout as a function of POS.

The negative association between JD and satisfaction was significant at low (b = .49, CI: [.308, .688]) and medium levels of POS (b = .29, CI: [.179, .41], while it was not significant at high levels of POS (b = .125, CI: [−.018, .269]) (Table 5 and Figure 3); the overall equation was significant (R 2 = .18; F (3, 230) = 12.42; p < .000), and the JD by POS interaction significantly increased the explained variance (R 2 change = .047, F (1, 232) = 9.37; p = .0026). This outcome indicates that the more the nurses perceive a supportive organization, the weaker the negative relationship between JD and satisfaction (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The association between job demands and satisfaction as a function of POS.

Table 5. Result of regression analysis concerning the moderation effect of POS on the job demands-satisfaction relationship and the conditional influence of POS based on the Johnson–Neyman technique

Discussion

Oncology nurses are particularly prone to BO and dissatisfaction due to various professional practice circumstances and working conditions that can lead to physical and emotional exhaustion, turnover, or sick leave (e.g., Woo et al. Reference Woo, Ho and Tang2020): they are asked to provide care with patience and empathy (Khamisa et al. Reference Khamisa, Oldenburg and Peltzer2015) and at the same time, must cope with a stressful environment as a result of daily contact with patient suffering and emotional demands.

In line with the theoretical framework, results confirmed that JD predict both BO and job satisfaction, in the present sample of oncology nurses; POS, on the other hand, is a weak predictor of job outcomes, but the results confirm the possible mediator role proposed by the JD-R model and the references in the literature (e.g., Serban et al. Reference Serban, Rubenstein and Bosco2022); self-esteem, furthermore, proves to be a predictor of BO, in particular (Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Jayappa and James2020). Overall, the most significant result appears to be the interaction between the JD and POS: this latter may be responsible for a possible buffer effect on the relationship between JD and outcomes.

Theoretical implications

The present results are in line with the JD-R theory (Bakker et al. Reference Bakker, Xanthopoulou and Demerouti2023; Li et al. Reference Li, Tuckey and Bakker2022), confirming that outcomes are predicted by JD and consistently with the idea that high demands at work are related to poorer outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, BO) (e.g., Li et al. Reference Li, Tuckey and Bakker2022), and performance (Rao and Krishna Reference Rao and Krishna2021).

Always in line with the JD-R Model, as regards self-esteem, findings suggest that personal resources predict BO and, to a lesser extent, satisfaction levels. From an empirical standpoint, our findings are also consistent with other contributions that have shown that organizational job resources may attenuate the adverse effect of JD on positive and negative outcomes: POS may play a central role in employee’s well-being and health, acting as a possible moderator, and somehow defusing the positive association between JD and outcomes, also in oncology setting; POS is considered an organizational resource that can generate a range of positive emotional perceptions and experiences in the workplace (Özyer et al. Reference Özyer, Berk and Polatcı2016), and can replenish resources consumed by emotional labor and counter time pressure (Riggle et al. Reference Riggle, Edmondson and Hansenc2009); as also reported by other studies on oncology workers, human resource (HR) management focused on support and team collaboration will lead to workers perceiving high level of job satisfaction and lower level of BO (Courtnage et al. Reference Courtnage, Bates and Armstrong2020).

In work contexts with high emotional demands, POS appears to be able to modulate the effects of JD on outcomes with a sort of buffer effect; according to the organizational support theory (e.g., Eisenberger et al. Reference Eisenberger, Shanock and Wen2020; Xu and Yang Reference Xu and Yang2021), POS has been shown to have significant benefits for workers and organizations: high POS workers suffer less BO at work, are more inclined to return to work after injury, and show better performance indicators (Kurtessis et al. Reference Kurtessis, Eisenberger and Ford2017; Rhoades and Eisenberger Reference Rhoades and Eisenberger2002), possibly because employees value POS partly because it meets their needs for approval, esteem, and affiliation, and provides comfort during times of stress (Lecca et al. Reference Lecca, Finstad and Traversini2020). Overall, the present research provides a valuable contribution to the literature on the relationship between the main organizational and personal factors considered in the JD-R model, on positive and negative outcomes among oncology nurses.

Practical implications

The results provide indications to HR managers in oncology departments and institutions. It seems clear that it is possible to intervene on organizational and personal variables to weaken the natural impact of JD on outcomes in oncology settings. Measures should focus on primary and secondary prevention and be aimed at avoiding negative consequences for nurses and their patient’s quality care, such as job BO, as well as reduced nurse satisfaction (Riggle et al. Reference Riggle, Edmondson and Hansenc2009). Furthermore, both training and individual and organizational interventions (e.g., job design, empowerment, increasing job control, etc.), in addition to BO prevention, should focus on the optimization of the balance between JD and resources.

The need to ensure oncology workers’ well-being should involve the periodic monitoring of specific psychosocial and organizational factors linked to outcomes and motivation. Flexible training designed to generate a high level of work engagement and self-esteem (e.g., emotional strength, coping strategies, acceptance, etc.), by virtue of the feedback effect of these outcomes on organizational perceptions (e.g., perceptions of management support) and JD (Crawford et al. Reference Crawford, LePine and Rich2010; Serban et al. Reference Serban, Rubenstein and Bosco2022), should be implemented by health-care institutions. Moreover, since the type of behavior triggered by resources would lead to advantages both for the individual and the organization (Schaufeli and Taris Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig2014), measures should focus on the exploration of emotional demands, enhancement of management-supporting activities, and personal resources (e.g., self-esteem). In organizations characterized by supportive management and sustainable HR management, workers have higher levels of job satisfaction, sense of citizenship, and loyalty, and are more inclined to share corporate values and goals; the POS as evidence that the organization intends to assist everyone’s work, but also a tool to take care of performance (Eisenberger et al. Reference Eisenberger, Malone and Presson2016).

Limitations and further research

It is important to underline that the results of this study are to be considered with caution and at the same time it is necessary to consider its various limitations.

First, the cross-sectional design of the study precludes conclusions about the possible causal direction of the observed relationships between variables. The nature (of convenience), the extension, and the homogeneity of the sample, moreover, limit the generalizability of the results, which should certainly be confirmed in similar samples in other cultural and organizational contexts. Considering some indications in the literature (Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Jayappa and James2020; Kupcewicz and Jóźwik Reference Kupcewicz and Jóźwik2020), we preferred not to explore the possible role of moderator of self-esteem between JD and outcomes; however, given that self-esteem is also clearly related to perceptions of the work environment and good relationships at work, it is possible that the research has missed an opportunity to better explore its role in the reference model.

It is therefore necessary that future studies should: (a) given that past research suggested that these constructs may influence each other over time (e.g., Bakker et al. Reference Bakker, Xanthopoulou and Demerouti2023; Xu and Yang Reference Xu and Yang2021), investigate with longitudinal studies the relationships and interactions between JD, resources, and outcomes; (b) consider the differential role of specific dimensions of JD (e.g., cognitive, emotional, physical, etc.), different job resources (e.g., autonomy, leadership, role ambiguity, leader–member exchange, etc.), and personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, flexibility) that may be relevant for oncology workers; (c) although the indications in the literature seem to be in line with our assumptions (e.g., Li et al. Reference Li, Tuckey and Bakker2022), explore the tested causal direction through studies with larger samples, experimental or longitudinal designs, and in different geographical and cultural contexts; (d) to overcome the limitations imposed by self-report measures, consider implementing third-party evaluations by supervisors or colleagues as well as objective data and possibly measurements of variables at different level (individual, group, team, organizational, etc.).

Conclusions

Oncology nurses are a population of workers exposed to multiple risk factors for psychological health, both environmental, relational, and role-related. The results of the present study support the need for organizations to create work environments that through favorable relationships and support at work can improve dedication to organizational objectives, prevent negative outcomes, and increase performance (Baran et al. Reference Baran, Shanock and Miller2012; Barattucci et al. Reference Barattucci, Lo Presti and Bufalino2020).

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951524000890.

Author contributions

TR and MB worked on the original idea and carried out the detailed conceptualization and investigation of this research. MB finalized the methodology. KC carried out the data collection. MB carried out data analysis and wrote the results section. TR, GS, and MB carried out the write-up of this project, including the writing of the original draft.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

Before administration of the questionnaire, according to the Helsinki Declaration and APA ethical standards, employees (a) were advised about their right to decline or withdraw to participate at any time, (b) confirmed that the instructions were clear, (c) were informed about all relevant aspects of the study, and (d) agreed to participate in the study. Data were managed in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); the study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences at the “Kore” University of Enna with code: UKE-IRBPSY-09.22.02.

References

Adil, MS and Baig, M (2018) Impact of job demands-resources model on burnout and employee’s well-being: Evidence from the pharmaceutical organisations of Karachi. IIMB Management Review 30(2), 119133. doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2018.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, MS, Barattucci, M, Ramayah, T, et al. (2022) Organizational support and perceived environment impact on quality of care and job satisfaction: A study with Pakistani nurses. International Journal of Workplace Health Management 15, . doi:10.1108/IJWHM-09-2021-0179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assiri, S, Shehata, S and Assiri, M (2020) Relationship of job satisfaction with perceived organizational support and quality of care among Saudi nurses. Health 12, 828839. doi:10.4236/health.2020.127060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, AB and Demerouti, E (2017) Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(3), 273285. doi:10.1037/ocp0000056CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, AB and de Vries, JD (2021) Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 34(1), 121. doi:10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, AB, Hakanen, JJ, Demerouti, E, et al. (2007) Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(2), 274284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, AB, Xanthopoulou, D and Demerouti, E (2023) How does chronic burnout affect dealing with weekly job demands? A test of central propositions in JD-R and COR-theories. Applied Psychology: An International Review 72(1), 389410. doi:10.1111/apps.12382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bao, Y and Zhong, W (2019) How stress hinders health among Chinese public sector employees: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of perceived organizational support. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 16(22), . doi:10.3390/ijerph16224408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baran, BE, Shanock, LR and Miller, LR (2012) Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology 27, 123147. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barattucci, M, Lo Presti, A, Bufalino, G, et al. (2020) Distributed leadership agency and work outcomes: Validation of the Italian DLA and its relations with commitment, trust, and satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology 11, . doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumgartner, H, Weijters, B and Pieters, R (2021) The biasing effect of common method variance: Some clarifications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 49, 221235. doi:10.1007/s11747-020-00766-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauchli, R, Jenny, GJ, Füllemann, D, et al. (2015) Towards a job demands-resources health model: Empirical testing with generalizable indicators of job demands, job resources, and comprehensive health outcomes. BioMed Research International 2015, . doi:10.1155/2015/959621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broetje, S, Jenny, GJ and Bauer, GF (2020) The key job demands and resources of nursing staff: An integrative review of reviews. Frontiers in Psychology 11, . doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caesens, G and Stinglhamber, F (2020) Toward a more nuanced view on organizational support theory. Frontiers in Psychology 11, . doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canboy, B, Tillou, C, Barzantny, C, et al. (2021) The impact of perceived organizational support on work meaningfulness, engagement, and perceived stress in France. European Management Journal 41(1), 90100. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costeira, C, Ventura, F, Pais, N, et al. (2022) Workplace stress in Portuguese oncology nurses delivering palliative care: A pilot study. Nursing Reports 12, 597609. doi:10.3390/nursrep12030059CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Courtnage, T, Bates, NE, Armstrong, AA, et al. (2020) Enhancing integrated psychosocial oncology through leveraging the oncology social worker’s role in collaborative care. Psychooncology 29(12), 20842090. doi:10.1002/pon.5582CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, ER, LePine, JA and Rich, BL (2010) Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(5), 834848. doi:10.1037/a0019364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Carlo, NA, Falco, A and Capozza, D (2008) Stress, Benessere Organizzativo E Performance. Valutazione & Intervento per l’Azienda Positiva. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Di Stefano, G, Venza, G and Aiello, D (2020) Associations of job insecurity with perceived work-related symptoms, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of leader–member exchange and the moderating role of organizational support. Frontiers in Psychology 11(1329), 19. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberger, R, Malone, GP and Presson, WD (2016) Optimizing perceived organizational support to enhance employee engagement. Society for Human Resource Management and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2, 322.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R, Shanock, LR and Wen, X (2020) Perceived organizational support: Why caring about employees counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 7, 101124. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberger, R, Wang, Z, Mesdaghinia, S, et al. (2014) Perceived Follower Support as a Source of Supportive Leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
Gama, G, Barbosa, F and Vieira, M (2014) Personal determinants of nurses’ burnout in end of life care. European Journal of Oncology Nursing: The Official Journal of European Oncology Nursing Society 18(5), 527533. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2014.04.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Urquiza, JL, Albendín-García, L, Velando-Soriano, A, et al. (2020) Burnout in palliative care nurses, prevalence and risk factors: A systematic review with meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 17(20), . doi:10.3390/ijerph17207672CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grama, BG and Băiaș, M (2018) Organizational support, emotional labor and burnout regarding the medical staff. Public Health and Management 19(1), . doi:10.3390/ijerph19010549Google Scholar
Guveli, H, Anuk, D, Oflaz, S, et al. (2015) Oncology staff: Burnout, job satisfaction and coping with stress. Psychooncology 24, 926931. doi:10.1002/pon.3743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, AF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences), 2nd edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Head, B, Middleton, A and Zeigler, C (2019) Work satisfaction among hospice and palliative nurses. Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing: JHPN: The Official Journal of the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association 21(5), E1E11. doi:10.1097/NJH.0000000000000562CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jennings, BM (2008) Work stress and burnout among nurses: Role of the work environment and working conditions. In Hughes, RG (ed), Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 135158.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, AR, Jayappa, R, James, M, et al. (2020) Do low self-esteem and high stress lead to burnout among health-care workers? Evidence from a tertiary hospital in Bangalore, India. Safety and Health at Work 11(3), 347352. doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2020.05.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khamisa, N, Oldenburg, B, Peltzer, K, et al. (2015) Work related stress, burnout, job satisfaction and general health of nurses. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 12(1), 652666. doi:10.3390/ijerph120100652CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitajima, M, Miyata, C, Tamura, K, et al. (2020) Factors associated with the job satisfaction of certified nurses and nurse specialists in cancer care in Japan: Analysis based on the Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs. PLoS One 15(5), . doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kock, F, Berbekova, A and Assaf, AG (2021) Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management 86, . doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupcewicz, E and Jóźwik, M (2020) Role of global self-esteem, professional burnout and selected socio-demographic variables in the prediction of Polish nurses’ quality of life – A cross-sectional study. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 13, 671684. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S252270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurtessis, JN, Eisenberger, R, Ford, MT, et al. (2017) Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management 43(6), 18541884. doi:10.1177/0149206315575554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarescu, I, Dubray, B, Joulakian, MB, et al. (2018) Prevalence of burnout, depression and job satisfaction among French senior and resident radiation oncologists. Cancer Radiotherapie: Journal de la Societe Francaise de Radiotherapie Oncologique 22(8), 784789. doi:10.1016/j.canrad.2018.02.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lecca, LI, Finstad, GL, Traversini, V, et al. (2020) The role of job support as a target for the management of work-related stress: The state of art. Quality - Access to Success 21, 152158.Google Scholar
Lee, J and Peccei, R (2007) Perceived organizational support and affective commitment: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem in the context of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, 661685. doi:10.1002/job.431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesener, T, Gusy, B and Wolter, C (2019) The job demands-resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress 33(1), 76103. doi:10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y, Tuckey, MR, Bakker, A, et al. (2022) Linking objective and subjective job demands and resources in the JD-R model: A multilevel design. Work & Stress 37(1), 2754. doi:10.1080/02678373.2022.2028319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H, Zhang, X, Chang, R, et al. (2017) A research regarding the relationship among intensive care nurses’ self-esteem, job satisfaction and subjective well-being. International Journal of Nursing Sciences 4(3), 291295. doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maslach, C, Schaufeli, WB, Michael, P, et al. (2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 397422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molero Jurado, M, Pérez-Fuentes, M, Gázquez Linares, JJ, et al. (2018) Burnout in health professionals according to their self-esteem, social support and empathy profile. Frontiers in Psychology 9, . doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muse, LA and Stamper, CL (2007) Perceived organizational support: Evidence for a mediated association with work performance. Journal of Management Issues 19, 517535.Google Scholar
Özyer, K, Berk, A and Polatcı, S (2016) Does the perceived organizational support reduce burnout? A survey on Turkish health sector. International Journal of Business Administration and Management Research 2(1), 2227.Google Scholar
Palestini, L, Prati, G, Pietrantoni, L, et al. (2009) La qualità della vita professionale nel lavoro di soccorso: Un contributo alla validazione italiana della Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL). Psicoterapia Cognitiva E Comportamentale 15, 205227.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, PM, MacKenzie, SB, Lee, JY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, KJ and Hayes, AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(4), 717731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rao, B and Krishna, G (2021) Employee stress and its impact on employee performance among women employees in Mysore district. Natural Volatiles and Essential Oils 8(4), 1399714015.Google Scholar
Rhoades, L and Eisenberger, R (2002) Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), 698714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riggle, RJ, Edmondson, DR and Hansenc, JD (2009) A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research 62(10), 10271030. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizo-Baeza, M, Mendiola-Infante, SV, Sepehri, A, et al. (2018) Burnout syndrome in nurses working in palliative care units: An analysis of associated factors. Journal of Nurse Management 26, 1925. doi:10.1111/jonm.12506Google ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, M (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartirana, M, Camporese, L and Dalle Grave, R (2013) Vincere la Bassa Autostima. Verona, Italy: Positive Press.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, WB and Taris, TW (2014) A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bauer, GF, and Hämmig, O (eds), Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach. Dordrecht: Springer, 4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serban, A, Rubenstein, AL, Bosco, FA, et al. (2022) Stressors and social resources at work: Examining the buffering effects of LMX, POS, and their interaction on employee attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology 37, 717734. doi:10.1007/s10869-021-09774-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamm, BH (2009) The Professional Quality of Life Scale: Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Compassion Fatigue/Secondary Trauma Scales. Lutherville, MD, USA: Sidran Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, LG and Bakker, AB (2021) Leadership and job demands-resources theory: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology 12, . doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722080CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnell, A, Rasmussen, V, Butow, P, et al. (2016) An exploration of the prevalence and predictors of work related well-being among psychosocial oncology professionals: An application of the job demands–resources model. Palliative and Supportive Care 14(1), 3341. doi:10.1017/S1478951515000693CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wazqar, DY (2018) Oncology nurses’ perceptions of work stress and its sources in a university-teaching hospital: A qualitative study. Nursing Open 6(1), 100108. doi:10.1002/nop2.192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, T, Ho, R, Tang, A, et al. (2020) Global prevalence of burnout symptoms among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research 123, 920. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, S, Singh-Carlson, S, Odell, A, et al. (2016) Compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction among oncology nurses in the United States and Canada. Oncology Nursing Forum. 43(4), E161169. doi:10.1188/16.ONF.E161-E169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xanthopoulou, D, Bakker, AB, Demerouti, E, et al (2012) A diary study on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and personal resources. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 21, 489517. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.584386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Z and Yang, F (2021) The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between job stress and burnout: A mediating or moderating role? Current Psychology 40, 402413. doi:10.1007/s12144-018-9941-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, J, Kim, J, Akter, J, et al. (2018) Pediatric oncology social workers’ experience of compassion fatigue. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 36(6), 667680. doi:10.1080/07347332.2018.1504850CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeng, X, Zhang, X, Chen, M, et al. (2020) The influence of perceived organizational support on police job burnout: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology 11, . doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00948CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Tested conceptual model (the colored lines refer to moderated effects): moderation model in which the effect of both determinants (JD and POS) on outcomes is moderated by the other determinant.

Figure 1

Table 1. Sample description

Figure 2

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and correlations between measured variables

Figure 3

Table 3. Outcomes regressed on measured antecedents

Figure 4

Table 4. Result of regression analysis concerning the moderation effect of POS on the job demands-burnout relationship and the conditional influence of POS based on the Johnson–Neyman technique

Figure 5

Figure 2. The association between job demands and burnout as a function of POS.

Figure 6

Figure 3. The association between job demands and satisfaction as a function of POS.

Figure 7

Table 5. Result of regression analysis concerning the moderation effect of POS on the job demands-satisfaction relationship and the conditional influence of POS based on the Johnson–Neyman technique

Supplementary material: File

Ramaci et al. supplementary material 1

Ramaci et al. supplementary material
Download Ramaci et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 180.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ramaci et al. supplementary material 2

Ramaci et al. supplementary material
Download Ramaci et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 217.1 KB