Anonymized transcripts and coding tables on the employment-health dilemma in the corona crisis
Work, Organizational and Business PsychologyAuthors(s) / Creator(s)
Kößler, Franziska J.Wesche, Jenny S.
Hoppe, Annekatrin
Abstract
The corona crisis exacerbated social inequalities and hit precarious workers, who, as part of the ‘industrial reserve army’, often cover short-term or seasonal labor demands, particularly hard. While the corona crisis reduced many employment opportunities for precarious workers (e.g., in tourism), healthcare facilities, among others, needed additional labor power. However, the latter work activities were often associated with both increased infection risks and additional burdens due to corresponding protective requirements (e.g., working in protective clothing).
Due to few highly demanded employment alternatives, support staff in healthcare facilities faced the dilemma of having to choose between (continuing) employment and protecting their health (Kößler et al., 2023). We expected a particularly strong manifestation of this employment-health dilemma (E-H dilemma) among non-medical workers in healthcare facilities (e.g., cleaners), as the corona crisis simultaneously confronted them with an economic threat (few alternative employment options) and a health threat (a heightened infection risk).
Therefore, the project aimed to analyze under which circumstances the combination of an economic and a health threat led to an employment-health dilemma (Study 1). The aim was also to understand how employees coped with economic threats, health threats, and the employment-health dilemma (Study 2).
To explore the E-H dilemma, we conducted 42 qualitative interviews with 45 non-medical workers in healthcare facilities. The interviews were based on a semi-structured interview guideline that we developed in a participatory manner with works councils and workers of comparable facilities. Interviews were then transcribed and anonymized. During data cleansing, we removed 6 interviews for methodological reasons (e.g., due to poor audio quality or sampling interviewees outside healthcare facilities) and 9 other interviews for content-related reasons (i.e., interviewees did not report an economic and/or health threat). Then we analyzed the remaining 27 interviews using qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2015). For this purpose, two independent coders inductively formed categories based on interview excerpts that dealt with economic threats, health threats, the EH dilemma (Study 1), and potential coping strategies (Study 2).
The analysis of Study 1 showed that the antecedents of economic and health threats can be categorized at a societal, organizational, and personal level. For example, the loss of part-time jobs (societal level), internal organizational restructuring processes (organizational level), and formal training (individual level) contributed to the perception of an economic threat. The perception of a health threat was conditioned, among other things, by the availability of information (societal level), defective protective equipment (organizational level), and contact with people with pre-existing conditions (individual level). Some interviewees who felt the economic threat forced them to keep their employment despite a health threat reported an E-H dilemma.
The analysis of Study 2 highlighted that workers used various coping strategies that can be mapped on two axes: On the one hand, these strategies may be either problem-oriented (e.g., naming problems) or emotion-oriented (e.g., cognitively avoiding problems). On the other hand, the mode of coping strategies was either cognitive (e.g., planning work) or behavioral (e.g., reducing stress during leisure activities).
Kößler, F. J., Wesche, J. S., & Hoppe, A. (2023). In a no‐win situation: The employment–health dilemma. Applied Psychology, 72(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12393
Persistent Identifier
https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.krfa22be02Year of Publication
2024Funding
Hans Böckler Foundation, DüsseldorfCitation
Kößler, F. J., Wesche, J. S. & Hoppe, A. (2024). Anonymized transcripts and coding tables on the employment-health dilemma in the corona crisis (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Research Data Center at ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.krfa22be02Study Description
Research Questions/Hypotheses:
Research Design:
Poorly standardised survey instrument (predefined question areas; open response format) response format); single measurement
Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:
The data was collected using a semi-structured German-language interview guide. This contained open questions and four questions (on high and low health and economic threats, respectively), which were designed according to the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The guideline was used in individual interviews, which lasted on average approximately one hour. The guideline is available in the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/pvs5m/?view_only=b21ec59120704490ae4dbc896aa3774e
Data Collection Method:
Survey in the absence of an investigator
- Telephone survey
- Other method, namely: Video conference survey
Population:
Non-medical employees in healthcare facilities
Survey Time Period:
2021-04-19 – 2022-04-08
Sample:
Convenience Sample
Gender Distribution:
67 % female participants
33 % male participants
Age Distribution: M = 48.03 (SD = 9.83), Range: 25 – 62
Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/-/-
Subject Recruitment:
Recruitment was carried out through contact to union secretaries and direct supervisors. After a brief introduction of the study, they received flyers to distribute among interested workers. Participation in the interviews was remunerated with 50 euros.
Sample Size:
N = 45, after methodological data cleansing n = 36; after contentwise data cleansing n = 27 – of these, one person did not give consent to share data in a repository, which means that 26 interviews will be archived; of the persons who were excluded after contentwise data cleansing (n = 9), two did not consent to archiving, which means that 7 interviews will be archived.
Return/Drop Out:
For methodological reasons, we excluded people who worked in management positions or outside the healthcare sector. We also excluded people who had an education comparable to a university degree or who did not answer the questions themselves (n = 5). In addition, we excluded one group interview with four people due to the sound quality.
For content-related reasons, we excluded people who had not reported a health threat (n = 4) and/or economic threat (n = 5). However, these are stored in the archived data if consent to archiving was given and labelled ‘_excluded’ accordingly (n = 7, as two people did not give their consent).
MD5: eec438c949306a0a3d00ffcb2c913407
MD5: 1429398260b3172d2efad07456932b63
MD5: 20ad4cc8f99b0b8553d90dd8c1f90f72
MD5: f316f4a9c2df57e5bed0a433b2b75e88
MD5: 82441bbf47f12ef0af942f4b743851fc
MD5: 24e7fce4935c73cb94b825ef50838d00
MD5: 18e3dfe9e1a000bd88dc13d85a2ab0d8
MD5: d741c35e279a7c7829243ab5dbd2fa9a
MD5: 2b8166f1495fb7579bdb1ea38b3b002c
MD5: 2b8166f1495fb7579bdb1ea38b3b002c
MD5: 71b48454fb18fa0e76f500a1cac0ffd6
MD5: 58bdb40151818adeadf3e10eb2653ec1
MD5: 0faec339f4116de688e130e17efef81f
MD5: e24548075fad04b329bcef5e6d8e08bf
MD5: a30973893a7e989c728a0ec7699bdb96
MD5: 95be44ce74f868696fa3f6583a806db2
MD5: 917e164e4d8f6d186cbaa4d6d785cd6a
MD5: 9888b7fd2a232c30f587756aa1713f44
MD5: cb26319ee69396a509151bea05604c98
MD5: 110be7c20ad7f60236b04fc6f1e5572d
MD5: eeb3f80a27fe0db28670a87a0e68735f
MD5: 5dbc314b1b672035e1da63bd8493e4b2
MD5: b46249a6c1ece247a1a0ce9ad8e6a68d
MD5: 3dc36044b63d68af0a1bc300e4f68159
MD5: 721f56137eec5fd98bc835786280addf
MD5: 14f3703567826ebbe3a0be60b3c9be7d
MD5: a984fdb78d1ebfcd5d2b41491562cc72
MD5: 5498ee3645ef9b8653ebcb7b56ba5e04
MD5: 44c80475209e4589dd7a415d6e437f59
MD5: 3118f5b26bedfba5c4892de70c61fff2
MD5: 8af8a84aef2aad2e9e84cf4a9a83ca86
MD5: 435e033317480acca58cb4794067b7dd
MD5: b599fca270fa189e4e47344df6d8efc2
MD5: fdd13f3a22f270c5a00f4b8918c6d64d
MD5: 2c1813f8c12cd983f61c752386945e22
MD5: dc4c6e5712e609701cdc20fb3fcec5ab
MD5: fa2ea260e142f92eecaa71e4497aba0b
MD5: a3a18e5b3e98ddff9c5b3cc282cb6d7f
MD5: 1eb96074572b0712364dec86d10639bf
MD5: 402e01bc9b6939c097d4c42c38d298a4
MD5: 8f183ecf11a33fdf3f5a4773d7c09340
| Further Reading |
|---|
| Kößler, F. J., Wesche, J. S., & Hoppe, A. (2023). In a no‐win situation: The employment–health dilemma. Applied Psychology, 72(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12393 |
| Gahrmann, C., Kößler, F. J., Mytrofanova, M., & Klumb, P. L. (2024). Affective job insecurity as a boundary condition between workplace incivility and negative mood in migrant and non-migrant temporary agency workers. Occupational Health Science. Online advance article. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-024-00204-z |