Work-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being of Social Care Workers in the Disability Sector in Ireland
Saved in:
| Title: | Work-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being of Social Care Workers in the Disability Sector in Ireland |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Victoria Hogan (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2025 38(3). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 10 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Quality of Life, Job Satisfaction, Social Services, Disabilities, Well Being, Social Work, Counselor Attitudes, Work Environment, Labor Turnover, Foreign Countries |
| Geographic Terms: | Ireland |
| DOI: | 10.1111/jar.70087 |
| ISSN: | 1360-2322 1468-3148 |
| Abstract: | Background: Scant attention has been paid to the quality of working life of social care workers in Ireland. This study sought to characterise both the quality of working life and the well-being of social care workers in the disability sector. Method: A cross-sectional survey of social care workers (n = 307) was conducted. Measures of work-related quality of life, well-being, organisational constraints, workload and turnover intention were included in the survey. Results: Experiencing higher organisational constraints, longer work hours and higher workload were related to lower quality of working life, F(9,242) = 24.953, p < 0.001. Higher organisational constraints and higher workload also negatively influenced well-being, F(9,240) = 11.494, p < 0.001. Linear regression indicated that higher turnover intention was influenced by lower quality of working life, F(1, 279) = 306.319, p < 0.001. Conclusions: The results indicate the importance of the influence of work-related factors on both quality of working life and well-being in social care workers in disability services in Ireland. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1475182 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGBSmN2fV-9llYsa87KleO3AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIaNZY-M0ScQek85EQIBEICBmlmgWnGWXG9oZT2Yb78U51ATwWFNHxh702rSBVxb8bFOnQAfN22mw6cboLFoZLsKfQs41kiNZ3fukcS8l6IF1CZHQ7EnNNX0rKsqffZqdPvPhlD9lZzElThq_PzQnsTgYH1_QpeBuGoxCPFfJqx9LXQPptxcpGKggSyXyutcDf6WzYychrdzQKK4Mo2Txl1FRp01znNMQhqWBpc= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0186163448;e0301may.25;2025Jun27.04:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186163448-1">Work‐Related Quality of Life and Well‐Being of Social Care Workers in the Disability Sector in Ireland </title> <p>Background: Scant attention has been paid to the quality of working life of social care workers in Ireland. This study sought to characterise both the quality of working life and the well‐being of social care workers in the disability sector. Method: A cross‐sectional survey of social care workers (n = 307) was conducted. Measures of work‐related quality of life, well‐being, organisational constraints, workload and turnover intention were included in the survey. Results: Experiencing higher organisational constraints, longer work hours and higher workload were related to lower quality of working life, F(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib242" id="ref2">242</reflink>) = 24.953, p &lt; 0.001. Higher organisational constraints and higher workload also negatively influenced well‐being, F(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib240" id="ref4">240</reflink>) = 11.494, p &lt; 0.001. Linear regression indicated that higher turnover intention was influenced by lower quality of working life, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>, 279) = 306.319, p &lt; 0.001. Conclusions: The results indicate the importance of the influence of work‐related factors on both quality of working life and well‐being in social care workers in disability services in Ireland.</p> <p>Keywords: disability sector; organisational constraints; quality of working life; social care workers; turnover intention; well‐being; workload</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In this study, social care workers in the disability sector in Ireland reported lower levels of well‐being and work‐related quality of life in comparison with the levels of well‐being generally experienced by health care workers.</item> <p></p> <item> Experiencing difficulties in daily work due to organisational constraints, a heavy workload and long work hours negatively influenced work‐related quality of life.</item> <p></p> <item> Experiencing difficulties in daily work due to organisational constraints and heavy workload negatively influenced well‐being.</item> <p></p> <item> Having a lower quality of work life meant that social care workers were more likely to want to leave their job.</item> </ulist> <p>Summary</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-2">Introduction</hd> <p>According to Silarova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]) it is vital that we understand how to make social care work attractive as a profession in order to ensure its sustainability into the future. The quality of work life construct can be useful in this context as it provides a set of measures to help diagnose problematic workplace issues and identify strategies to improve working life for both the benefit of staff and service users (Martel and Dupuis [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]). Importantly, quality of work life can be measured as a multi‐dimensional construct and thus may provide more information to employers than uni‐dimensional analyses of related constructs such as job satisfaction, job involvement, work‐related stress and so forth. While a number of studies have examined the quality of work life of social care workers across European countries and the UK (see Silarova et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>] for a review), no study to date has examined the work‐related quality of life (WrQoL) of Irish social care workers. Given differences in healthcare systems, workforce composition, regulation and accreditation across countries, there is a need to investigate WrQoL specifically within the Irish social care system and national context.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-3">WrQoL and Well‐Being</hd> <p>There is no consensus on how to define WrQoL (Sirgy et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref9">40</reflink>]) and numerous definitions of WrQoL have been employed in adult social care research to date (Silarova et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref10">39</reflink>]). Reviews of the construct have identified 33 possible components (e.g., Easton and Van Laar [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]; Wallace et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]); however, Silarova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref13">39</reflink>]) in their review of the adult social care literature propose six primary components to WrQoL: organisational characteristics, job characteristics, mental well‐being/health, physical well‐being/health, spill‐over from work to home and professional identity. At the same time, Silarova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]) noted that no study to date has examined all of these components. Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref15">46</reflink>]) in their review of instruments designed to measure WrQoL in healthcare and social service staff reported that most instruments examine work conditions, job satisfaction, work‐related stress, relationship/balance issues and career progression. To date, questionnaire instruments generally include measures of work conditions, job satisfaction and Stress at Work (SAW), and most include other unique measures related to quality of work life that vary from one instrument to the next (Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref16">46</reflink>]). In this study, we adopt the Van Laar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref17">44</reflink>]) model of WrQoL, which proposes a six‐factor structure, composed of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) General Well‐Being (GWB), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) Home–Work Interface (HWI), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) Job and Career Satisfaction (JCS), (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>) Control at Work (CAW), (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>) Working Conditions (WCS) and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>) SAW. The Van Laar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]) model and measurement instrument of WrQoL was chosen for this study as it was specifically designed for use with healthcare workers (HCW) and has previously been employed in studies examining WrQoL in social care workers for example, McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]); Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]) and other allied healthcare professionals, including occupational therapists (Hogan et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]) and nursing home staff (Rai [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The shortage of health and social care workers is a recognised problem both internationally (McGill Nursing Collaborative [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]) and within Ireland (Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]; Keegan et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]). The landscape for HCWs, including social care workers both pre and post‐Covid is challenging (McFadden et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]), with high stress levels reported and lower levels of well‐being (Kinman [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]). In a national study by McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]) examining WrQoL in allied HCWs in the UK during the Covid pandemic, approximately one third of social care workers reported low WrQoL. WrQoL has been linked to higher turnover intention across several healthcare groups, including nurses (Kaddourah et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]; Poku et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]), occupational therapists (Hogan et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>]), hospital employees (Shukla et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]) and social care workers (Engström et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]). In a study which employed the WrQoL questionnaire instrument, Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]) examined turnover intentions and the influence of WrQoL on nurses and social care workers. Within the study, 22% of social care workers indicated that they intended to leave both their profession and their workplace. WrQoL factors significantly related to turnover intention included higher levels of work‐related stress, poorer work‐life integration and lower levels of job/career satisfaction. McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]) have reported that personal factors (i.e., ethnicity and relationship status) were related to WrQoL in allied HCWs, while Hogan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>]) reported that work‐related characteristics (i.e., workload and organisational constraints) were related to WrQoL in Irish occupational therapists. Social care workers are regarded as being particularly vulnerable to experiencing low WrQoL due to a combination of work and situational factors, including unfavourable WCS, low pay, and the emotional toll associated with the work, leading to both physical and mental stress and burnout (Hussein et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]; Towers et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref44">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-4">Social Care in Ireland</hd> <p>Social care workers in Ireland operate in a mixed economy of care that includes public, private and voluntary/charitable providers, with the latter often partially or fully funded from the public purse by the Health Service Executive (Byrne [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]). The mixed economy approach varies significantly by sector, with private providers dominating the provision of children's residential services and care of older people, while care for individuals with disabilities is largely supplied by voluntary/charitable organisations (Lyons [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]; Mulkeen [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>]). This approach to social care in Ireland has been shaped by the historical influence of the Catholic Church in health and education, a consequently residual attitude to state welfare and an arms‐length approach by the state to service provision (Harvey [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]; Moran [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>These historical and mixed economy influences have been influential in shaping social care work in Ireland, with recognition of social care work as a distinct profession only gaining traction with the inclusion of social care worker as a professional title in the 2005 Health and Social Care Professionals Act. However, a state register for social care workers under the remit of CORU, Ireland's multi‐professional health and social care regulator, did not open until November 2023 and there is a 2 year‐grandparenting period (CORU [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]). As such, it will be the end of 2025 before a definitive figure can be put on the number of social care workers in Ireland (Hanrahan [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]). The near 20 year wait between the Act and a register opening can be attributed to the complexities of regulating a previously unregulated and diverse grouping that operates across many sectors, with multiple entry routes into social care work (CORU [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>]). Indeed, the term social care worker was created in the mid‐1990s in an effort to encompass the diversity of worker roles under a common term, but it has not been widely endorsed (Lyons [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Power and D'Arcy [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]). Moreover, social care workers feel that social care work is poorly understood, remains the poor relation among other professions, and is almost unknown among the general public (Power and Dashdondog [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref55">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The absence of a commonly accepted title and the legacy of an organisational rather than professional led evolution of social care work continues to exert a substantial influence. While the workforce is predominately female, job titles and roles and responsibilities vary significantly within and between sectors and organisations (Power and D'Arcy [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]). Moreover, pay and WCS are felt to be inadequate, especially in for‐profit providers, while long unsocial hours and a general lack of respect have been identified as other key challenges for recruitment and retention (Power and Burke [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref57">33</reflink>]). This is often compounded by concerns around the extent of risks to be managed in day‐to‐day practice, inadequate staffing and very limited progression and career pathways, with an all too common glass ceiling of social care leader (Power and Dashdondog [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref58">35</reflink>]). Thus, it is unsurprising that many view social care work as merely a means to another career or profession rather than an end in itself (Power and Dashdondog [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-5">Aims</hd> <p>Silarova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref60">39</reflink>]) have identified 68 studies to date that have examined WrQoL among workers in adult social care, noting a lack of agreement on how to define WrQoL and its measurement. The results from the systematic review by Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref61">46</reflink>]) examining instruments employed to measure WrQoL among social services workers support the lack of consistency in approaches to measurement, identifying 13 different instruments that have been employed to date. Considering that over 30 WrQoL studies have been conducted across the EU and eight in the UK/England (Silarova et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]), the lack of attention to the issue of WrQoL in the Irish setting is of concern. Therefore, this study aims to characterise the well‐being and WrQoL of social care workers in the disability sector in Ireland using a questionnaire measure of WrQoL designed for use with HCWs and previously employed in examinations of this issue with social care workers in other European countries (Engström et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref63">9</reflink>]; McFadden et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]). In particular, the influence of personal and workplace characteristics on WrQoL will be investigated in conjunction with an examination of the relationship between WrQoL and turnover intentions.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186163448-7">Participants</hd> <p>National figures for the number of social care workers in Ireland are not available and there is no national association of social care workers through which the questionnaire could be distributed. In the current study, social care workers, who were working in the Disability Services Sector were designated as the target population and were approached through a network of national contacts available to the research team. A number of gatekeepers agreed to distribute the questionnaire to workers in the Disability Services Sector. In addition, the study was advertised through social media. Although formal population figures for social care workers in the disability sector are not available, an approximate figure of 4000 in the sector is likely (Health Service Executive [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]). In total 308 questionnaires were completed, of which 307 were usable, representing 8% of the estimated population in the disability sector.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-8">Procedure</hd> <p>This study employed a cross‐sectional, multi‐variate questionnaire survey design. A link to an electronic survey questionnaire in Microsoft Forms was sent to the gatekeepers for distribution to participants. The email invitation to participate in the study included a participant information leaflet which provided a study overview. Data was collected in June–July 2022.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-9">Measures</hd> <p>A questionnaire was designed for the study with reference to the extant literature. The questionnaire included three sections, which examined (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>) demographics of the sample, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>) work characteristics and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>) validated measures of WrQoL, turnover intentions, well‐being, quantitative workload and organisational constraints. One open‐ended question was included to allow participants to comment on their quality of working life. Additional details on the survey measures employed are provided below.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Demographic questions: Age, gender, ethnicity, marital status and caring responsibilities were included.</item> <p></p> <item> Work characteristics: 15 questions were employed to examine features of work, which included professional area of work, location in country, sector, job tenure and role, working hours/overtime, sick leave, redeployment.</item> <p></p> <item> WrQoL: Measured using the Quality of Working Life Scale (Van Laar et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]). This scale includes six factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) GWB (six items), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) HWI (three items), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) JCS (six items), (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>) CAW (three items), (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>) WCS (three items) and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref75">6</reflink>) SAW (two items). Responses for all items employ a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 'Strongly Disagree' to 'Strongly Agree'. Scoring instructions by Easton and Van Laar ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref76">8</reflink>]) were followed to compute factor scores and an overall score for the measure. Higher scores reflect better quality of work life.</item> <p></p> <item> Turnover intentions: The Turnover Intention Scale (Michaels and Spector [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref77">27</reflink>]) was employed. This measure includes three items (e.g., 'I often seriously consider leaving my current job'). Responses are scored on a six‐point Likert scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. Higher scores reflect greater turnover intentions.</item> <p></p> <item> Well‐being: GWB was measured using the WHO‐5 Well‐being Index (WHO‐5; World Health Organisation [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref78">47</reflink>]). This measure employs five items (e.g., 'I have felt cheerful and in good spirits'). Responses are provided using a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 'at no time' to 'all of the time'. Higher scores indicate better well‐being.</item> <p></p> <item> Workload: The Quantitative Workload Inventory (Spector and Jex [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref79">41</reflink>]) was employed, which consists of five questions. Respondents are asked to indicate how often different situations occur (e.g., how often do you have to do more work than you can do well?). Responses are provided on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 'less than once per month' to 'several times per day'. Higher scores reflect higher levels of workload.</item> <p></p> <item> Organisational Constraints: The Organisational Constraints Scale (Spector and Jex [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref80">41</reflink>]) was employed, which is composed of 11 items. The items measure how difficult work is to do because of constraints (e.g., 'Interruptions by other people'). Responses are provided on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 'less than once per month' to 'several times per day'. Higher scores reflect a higher level of constraints.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186163448-10">Statistical Analyses</hd> <p>Descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted on the survey data, including the calculation of means and standard deviations for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages for categorical level data. Regression analyses were employed for the purpose of addressing the research objectives, which were to determine the relationship between personal and work‐related variables on WrQoL and well‐being and to determine the relationship between WrQoL and turnover intentions. Cronbach alpha was calculated to assess scale reliability of the measures employed in the survey questionnaire. Table 2 presents the Cronbach alpha values for the WrQoL sub‐scales and the WHO‐5, QWI and OC measures. All measures employed demonstrated good to very good Cronbach alpha reliability with all scales exceeding 0.7. Quantitative data analysis was conducted using SPSS, Version 29.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-11">Content Analysis</hd> <p>Inductive category coding (Mayring [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]) was employed to analyse the responses to the open‐ended question. This form of conventional content analysis is considered appropriate when the study aim is to describe a phenomenon (Hsieh and Shannon [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]), which in the case of this study is WrQoL.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-12">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>Ethical approval for the study was provided in March 2022 by the University of Galway Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent was sought from all study participants through a mandatory informed consent question at the start of the questionnaire survey.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186163448-14">Quantitative Results</hd> <p>Table 1 presents the demographic and work characteristics of the sample. The majority of the sample was female (<emph>n</emph> = 278, 91%), aged less than 40 years (61%) and almost half (49%) had children. Over half (54%) had completed undergraduate studies, and the majority were in full‐time employment (85%) and had permanent positions (95%).</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic and work characteristics of participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Variable&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&amp;#8201;=&amp;#8201;307&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Percentage&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Age&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;18&amp;#8211;29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;74&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;30&amp;#8211;39&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;114&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;40&amp;#8211;49&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;50&amp;#8211;59&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;60&amp;#8211;65&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Marital status&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Single&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Married&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;132&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Co&amp;#8208;habiting&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;68&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Divorced/separated&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Children&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Yes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;149&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;49&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;No&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;158&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;51&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Qualification&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Secondary school&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Undergraduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;164&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;54&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Postgraduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;137&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;PhD&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Employment status&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Full time&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;261&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Part time&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;46&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Job permanence&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Permanent&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;289&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;95&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Temporary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Agency&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Independent (self&amp;#8208;employed)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Sector&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Public&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;142&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;48&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Private&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;76&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Voluntary/community/other&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;79&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Years of work experience&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;91&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;6&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;21&amp;#8211;30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#62;&amp;#8201;30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Hours worked&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Mean&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;(SD)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;All workers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;38.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;8.9&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Full time workers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;40.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;7.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Part time workers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;27.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5.96&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The average scores and standard deviations for the WrQoL sub‐scales and overall measure are presented in Table 2. These scores were compared to published normative data for the WrQoL measure (Easton and Van Laar [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]), which were generated for HCWs in the UK. The overall score and sub‐scale scores are all towards the lower end of the distribution. For example, the average score of 2.85 on the CAW sub‐scale indicates that the score is within the 20th percentile, which means that the average CAW score in this study is equal to or higher than 20% of HCWs in the UK. The overall score on the WrQoL measure is within the lowest percentile that is, between the 10th–20th percentile. Scores for the QWI and OCS were also compared to normative data and in both cases the average scores of 18.71 and 27.61 were higher than the norms, indicating a higher level of reported quantitative work intensity and organisational constraints. Figure 1 presents the distribution of the responses to the Organisational Constraints questionnaire items, presented as percentages. Almost one third (32%) of participants indicated that other workers constrained their work activity on a daily basis, while over one third indicated that inadequate help (37%), conflicting job demands (38%) and interruptions by others (42%) constrained their work daily. The WHO‐5 score (43.44) was compared to the cut‐off threshold of 50, which is the level under which scores indicate lower well‐being (Topp et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>]). While there was no comparative normative data for the Turnover Intentions measure, descriptive statistics demonstrate that 71% agreed that they were considering resigning from their jobs, 61% were looking for other jobs, and just over half (51%) intended to quit.</p> <p>2 TABLE Means, standard deviations and Cronbach alphas on questionnaire measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Mean&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Normative data comparison&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Cronbach's alpha&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Work&amp;#8208;related quality of life&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.68&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10th to 20th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;General Well&amp;#8208;being Factor (GWB)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.79&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;20th to 25th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.875&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Home&amp;#8211;Work Interface (HWI)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.92&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;20th to 25th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.801&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Job Career Satisfaction (JCS)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.797&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Control at Work (CAW)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.89&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;20th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.729&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stress at Work (SAW) &lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.87&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;20th&amp;#8211;30th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Working Conditions (WCS)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.91&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25th&amp;#8211;30th percentile&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.754&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Turnover intention&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;12.35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.913&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;WHO&amp;#8208;5 well&amp;#8208;being&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;43.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;21.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.885&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Organisational Constraints&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;27.61&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;9.92&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Higher than norm&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Quantitative Workload Inventory&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;18.71&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;Higher than norm&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.915&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Cronbach alpha not calculated as only two items in scale.</p> <p>2 b Calculation of Cronbach alpha is not advised (Spector and Jex [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref85">41</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/E03/01may25/jar70087-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jar70087-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The distribution of responses to the 11 questions of the Organisational Constraints Scale by participants. Numbers within the figure indicate the percentage of the sample who reported the constraint. Colour coding of the bars indicates the frequency at which each organisational constraint was experienced. Blue indicates that a constraint was experienced rarely, orange indicates that a constraint was experienced on a monthly basis, grey indicates that a constraint was experienced weekly and yellow indicates that a constraint was experienced daily. For example, 42% of participants reported being interrupted by others on a daily basis whereas only 8% of participants reported inadequate training being a daily constraint." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186163448-16">Regression Analysis</hd> <p>For the first regression model examining the relationship between personal and work‐related variables on WrQoL, in the first instance Pearson's correlation analysis was conducted on the predictor variables included in the model. This indicated that a number of the variables were correlated, however, these ranged from weak to moderate level correlations. Among the predictor variables for example, QWI was positively correlated with OCS, <emph>r</emph> = 0.642, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001. In addition, variance inflation factors were checked for all predictor variables and ranged from 1.050 to 1.784, demonstrating that multi‐collinearity was not a significant issue. The variables were then entered in three blocks, with the personal variables entered as the first block (age, marital status, children) and the work‐related variables entered in the second block (full‐time/part‐time status, years' work experience, sector, hours per week) and the QWI and OCS variables were entered in the third block. A significant model was produced, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib242" id="ref87">242</reflink>) = 24.953, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, that explained 46% of the variance (Adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.462). The standardised regression coefficients and significance levels for the variables included in the final model are presented in Table 3. A second multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the influence of personal and work‐related variables on well‐being. The variables were entered as per the approach for WrQoL. A significant model was produced, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib240" id="ref89">240</reflink>) = 11.494, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, that explained 28% of the variance (Adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.275). Table 3 presents the standardised regression coefficients and significance levels for the predictor variables included in the final model. Linear regression was conducted to examine the influence of WrQoL on turnover intention. The model was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, 279) = 306.319, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, and explained 52% of the variance (Adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.522), <emph>B</emph> = −5.448, <emph>B</emph> SE = 0.311, <emph>β</emph> = −0.723.</p> <p>3 TABLE Multiple linear regression analyses for the outcome variables WrQoL and well‐being.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Variable&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;WrQoL&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Well&amp;#8208;being&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;&amp;#946;&lt;/italic&gt; (standardised beta value)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;&amp;#946;&lt;/italic&gt; (standardised beta value)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Age&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.011&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.855&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.128&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.067&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Marital status&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.039&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.410&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.011&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.840&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Children&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.020&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.679&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.039&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.496&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Full time/part time&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.071&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.174&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.057&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.348&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Work experience&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.035&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.561&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.052&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.456&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Sector&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.035&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.467&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.032&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.558&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Work hours&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.141&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.007&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.051&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.470&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Quantitative Workload&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.171&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.006&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.208&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.004&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Organisational Constraints&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.549&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;0.001&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.339&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;0.001&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>3 * Denotes statistical significance.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-17">Open Question</hd> <p>Of the 307 respondents, 88 provided additional comments, illustrating how aspects of the work environment impacted quality of working life. Notably, only one participant (<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref91">86</reflink>) described their work positively, stating 'I love my job. Most of the time'. Stress‐inducing work conditions was a prominent theme, with multiple stressors such as workload increases, staff shortages, high responsibility and low salary referred to. For example, 'staffing crisis, under qualified and uninterested staff, Covid issues and working in an extremely difficult and dangerous work environment have made me change from a social care worker who loved my job to a defeated and injured and permanently stressed social care leader' (<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref92">82</reflink>). Participants variously described negative outcomes as a result of these work conditions, including experiencing fatigue, stress, burnout, being overwhelmed and a lack of rest and recovery time. For example, one participant noted that they were 'Feeling extremely overwhelmed more and more, only for my colleagues in my centre and our team work I feel I might not be able to do this role long term with things as they are currently' (<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref93">71</reflink>). Social care work was described as intense, physically and mentally draining, even dangerous at times and while this was accepted as the nature of the job, the lack of support and not being listened to by management was how quality of working life was eroded. As noted by one respondent, '<emph>Regular staff are going beyond their job title everyday with little or no support from management with the attitude of "</emph>just get on with it"' (<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref94">32</reflink>).</p> <p>Work‐life balance issues were also another prominent theme that respondents identified as causing stress, exhaustion and potentially leading to isolation and loneliness. Work‐life balance issues were seen to be a function of poor management practices in relation to shift work. Respondents identified long shifts, inconsistent rostering and inadequate rest breaks between shifts as punitive shift patterns. Relatedly, waking nights and sleepovers that 'don't count as hours worked' (<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref95">40</reflink>) were particularly difficult for staff impacting on the quality of family life and on individual health and well‐being. Management were seen to '<emph>not abide by the Working Time Act</emph>' (<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref96">59</reflink>) and as such respondents referred to poor and uncaring management practices. Conversely, some respondents highlighted attention from management to rostering, and/or being able to negotiate part‐time hours, which was seen as positive; 'I work 40 h a fortnight. This does not include sleepovers. I reduced my hours so I can get the work life balance that is needed. Before I reduced my contracted hours I was extremely unhappy and stressed'. (<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref97">40</reflink>).</p> <p>Workload challenges and poor management intersected with the reported experience of social care work post‐Covid. Respondents mentioned not having breaks, being expected to be responsive at all times to client needs, and being on call or texted out of hours, for example: 'Expectation of always being available is a bad culture of social care, Covid has created the virtual manager which is very disheartening for front line workers' (<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref98">56</reflink>). So even when not in work, social care working practices create a spillover effect, impacting negatively on quality of life.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-18">Discussion</hd> <p>Given that the WrQoL of social care workers in Ireland has not been examined to date, this study sought in the first instance to characterise WrQoL and well‐being in social care workers in the disability sector. A second objective was to investigate the relationship between personal and work‐related variables and both WrQoL and well‐being, similar to the research conducted by McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref99">25</reflink>]) in their national investigation of WrQoL in HCWs in the UK. The relationship between WrQoL and turnover intention was also examined. A number of work‐related factors were highlighted as significant in the regression analyses, that is, work hours, workload and organisational constraints in the case of WrQoL, and workload and organisational constraints in the case of well‐being. In keeping with the extant literature on turnover intentions among HCWs, the results of the regression analysis also revealed a positive relationship between lower WrQoL and higher turnover intention.</p> <p>The mean WrQoL score (2.85) in this study equates to only the 10th–20th percentile of normative scores on the WrQoL measure (Van Laar et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]), comparing unfavourably with previous research. For example, it is lower than the mean score (3.7) reported by Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref101">9</reflink>]) in their study of social care workers and nurses in Sweden, the mean score (3.4) reported by McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref102">25</reflink>]) in their study of HCWs, including social care workers in the UK, and also the mean score (3.16) reported by Hogan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref103">14</reflink>]) in their study of occupational therapists in Ireland. The scores on the six components of the WrQoL measure were also at the lower end of the distribution, with the scores ranging from the 20th to the 30th percentile of the normative scores. The qualitative responses where participants described their WrQoL further reinforce and provide additional context to explain the low scores on the SAW and HWI subscales of the WrQoL measure.</p> <p>The results from the regression analysis demonstrated that longer working hours alongside higher levels of organisational constraints and higher workload significantly predicted lower WrQoL. Although previous research has noted that personal variables can influence WrQoL in social care workers (McFadden et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref104">25</reflink>]), personal variables were not found to be significant predictors in this study. Reported work hours in this study ranged from 17 to 80 h a week, with an average of 38 h per week. Only a minority of participants (6%) reported working over 50 h per week, and average hours worked also depended on the full‐time versus part‐time employment status of workers, with mean working hours of 40 and 27 h, respectively. While working hours for the majority are within the normal range, the mean score on the Quantitative Workload Inventory (18.71) is higher than the available norm (16.5), which implies a high level of demand upon social care workers during their shifts. Towers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref105">43</reflink>]) reported that heavy workloads experienced by social care workers impede service delivery, with a lack of time and resources available to support the people that they care for. The mean score (27.61) on the organisational constraints measure is also higher than the norm (21.3) and is higher in comparison with the mean score (25.35) reported by occupational therapists working largely in the public health sector in Ireland (Hogan et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref106">14</reflink>]). The organisational constraint score in this study can be further understood by reference to particular constraints reported by social care workers in their daily work. In particular, the analysis of the individual items on the Organisational Constraint measure indicates that social care workers frequently experienced constraints related to co‐workers, a lack of help and experiencing frequent interruptions, with conflicting work demands being the most frequently identified (42%) daily constraint.</p> <p>The average score of 43.44 on the WHO‐5 well‐being instrument is considerably lower than the threshold score of 50 which is considered to denote low well‐being. This score also compares unfavourably with the average score (<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref107">52</reflink>) reported for the general public in Ireland by Guzman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref108">10</reflink>]) in their Green‐Covid survey and is lower than the average score (53.5) reported by Hogan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref109">14</reflink>]) for occupational therapists. This low level of average well‐being among social care workers in the disability sector concurs with that of McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref110">25</reflink>]) who reported lower well‐being in social workers when compared with the general public in their UK based study of allied care professionals. However, this comparison must be interpreted with caution due to the use of two different instruments to measure well‐being; in this study the WHO‐5 was employed while McFadden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref111">25</reflink>]) used the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well‐being Scale. Nevertheless, the low level of well‐being among social care workers in the disability sector in Ireland is concerning. The low level of well‐being reported can be further understood by reference to the work context described in the qualitative feedback, indicating stressful WCS, in conjunction with lack of management support, contributing to day‐to‐day difficulties for workers. Notably, in the qualitative responses increased work demands were seen to be caused by staff shortages, which would potentially explain why lack of help from others was identified by over a third of respondents as a daily constraint. Certainly, previous surveys of social care workers in the Irish disability sector (<emph>n</emph> = 195) have found that only slightly over one quarter (25.6%) felt there were 'generally sufficient numbers of staff for the work involved' (Power and Dashdondog [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref112">35</reflink>]). With regards to stress, Ryan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref113">37</reflink>]) in their scoping review of work‐related stress and well‐being among direct care workers in intellectual disability services note that stress and strain is experienced within this sector globally and that occupational factors including excessive work demands, low control and low support are related to higher levels of work‐related stress.</p> <p>While work hours were not related to well‐being in this study, both organisational constraints and quantitative workload were both significant predictors of well‐being in the regression analysis. This finding is partially consistent with that of Hogan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref114">14</reflink>]) who reported that higher organisational constraints was predictive of lower well‐being in their study of occupational therapists in Ireland. The finding that high workload as denoted by the QWI score (18.71) negatively influenced well‐being is consistent with the qualitative descriptions provided, which indicate that the work is 'intense' and 'physically and mentally draining'. Notably, organisational constraints was the strongest predictor in both the WrQoL and the well‐being regression models. This findings is consistent with Pindek and Spector ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref115">30</reflink>]), who have found that organisational constraints are linked to both physical and psychological strain and predict both strain and well‐being outcomes, even when other stressors have been controlled for. These findings highlight the need for further investigation of the nature and impact of organisational constraints, with a particular focus on how specific constraints can be reduced in efforts to enhance WrQoL and well‐being.</p> <p>The level of turnover intentions in this study is much higher than that reported by Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref116">9</reflink>]). In this study, 71% of respondents indicated that they had considered resigning from their position, in comparison with 22% of social care workers and 23% of nurses in the Swedish study. Furthermore, just over half (51%) of social care workers in this study reported that they intended to quit, and 61% indicated that they had started to look for other jobs. These rates of turnover intention compare unfavourably with the rate of turnover intention among occupational therapists in Ireland, where Hogan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref117">14</reflink>]), employing the same turnover intention measure reported that 46% of occupational therapists had considered resigning, while a third reported that they intended to quit. The comparison between this study and Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>]) must be interpreted with caution due to the use of different measures of turnover intention. Indeed, the Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref119">9</reflink>]) study differentiated between intention to quit one's current job and intention to leave the profession, offering a helpful insight into the threat to social care services due to turnover and movement towards other professions, whereas our study examined whether social care workers were considering leaving or if they had taken actions to source alternative employment. However, unlike Engström et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref120">9</reflink>]), it is unclear from our findings whether or not a career change in particular was planned. Nonetheless, the level of turnover intentions among Irish social care workers in the current study is worrying, and potentially presents a significant challenge to the provision of services in the disability sector. Poon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref121">32</reflink>]) previously noted in their review of turnover intention among HCWs that work and organisational factors have been significant influencing factors both before and after the Covid‐19 pandemic. The regression analysis in this study demonstrated the significant influence of WrQoL on turnover intentions.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-19">Strengths and Limitations</hd> <p>This is the first examination of WrQoL in the social care sector in Ireland, which is timely as social care work, including job roles and the nature of work differ across countries (Silarova et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref122">39</reflink>]). This study employed a widely used model and measure of WrQoL (Van Laar et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref123">44</reflink>]) that was designed specifically for measuring WrQoL in healthcare populations, allowing direct comparison of the study findings to other allied healthcare groups, and to previous studies where the same measure was employed with social care workers (e.g., Engström et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref124">9</reflink>]; McFadden et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref125">25</reflink>]; Rai [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref126">36</reflink>]). The majority of studies to date investigating WrQoL in social care workers have relied on a variety of constructs related to WrQoL for example, job satisfaction, work‐related stress and so forth, but few to date have measured the construct itself (Silarova et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref127">39</reflink>]). Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref128">46</reflink>]) recommend the WrQoL (Easton and Van Laar [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref129">8</reflink>]) measure for use with social care groups because it has good validity, is theoretically driven and is easy to interpret.</p> <p>At the same time, limitations in this study include potential bias in the sample surveyed, the lack of availability of population size data, and the reliance on approximate estimates of the number of social care workers within the disability sector in Ireland. The potential bias in the sample must be acknowledged. It contrasts considerably with UK figures, based on the recent survey of 7233 adult social care workers (Blake et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref130">2</reflink>]), who were older, less likely to have children and less likely to have attained graduate status. At the same time, the representativeness of the current study sample in the Irish context is also unknown, given that in the absence of a professional body to help with the distribution of the questionnaire, convenience sampling was employed. Social care work has a narrow definition in Ireland and therefore comparisons with other jurisdictions require caution. Additionally, the high number of graduates in this study (99%) is likely to be influenced by the fact that social care work education programmes have been extremely popular in Ireland, especially against the long‐awaited backdrop of state registration and regulation. At the same time, there is a tension within the social care workforce around qualified/unqualified and thus the education levels reflected in studies may not fully reflect the makeup of the workforce (Power and Dashdondog [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref131">35</reflink>]). Due to the reliance of the research team on a number of gatekeepers to distribute the questionnaire to their colleagues and networks, it was not possible to accurately record the number of distributed questionnaires; therefore, a response rate to this questionnaire survey could not be generated; instead, the study presents the proportion of participants as a percentage of the overall population of social care workers in the disability sector in Ireland. The sample achieved in this study was female‐dominated; therefore, it may not be fully representative of the views of male social care workers. It is also worth noting that COVID‐19 is a likely confounder. Data was collected for this study when restrictions had been lifted, although a spike had occurred 3 months previously. Other WrQoL studies also took place during or after COVID (e.g., McFadden et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref132">24</reflink>]) where health care services were impacted differently. As such, while an acknowledged influential factor, the nature of this influence in the context of different jurisdictions is not known and should be considered in the interpretation of findings. Finally, the responses to the open‐ended question reflect only the views of a sub‐sample of the respondents to the survey overall.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-20">Implications for Policy, Practice and Research</hd> <p>The low levels of WrQoL and well‐being coupled with the high turnover intention reported by participants in this study are concerning and have implications for the sustainability of the social care work force in the disability sector and service delivery. The results suggest that concrete actions are required to improve both well‐being and WrQoL among social care workers in the disability sector. Ideally, as noted by Towers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref133">43</reflink>]) more resources, more time and more staff would greatly benefit existing staff and operations, although this may not be achievable; therefore, they recommended practical actions that can be implemented, including but not limited to: the provision of predictable shift patterns, mental health first aiders, better holiday allowances and means of contact for lone staff to combat loneliness for example, Zoom calls. Furthermore, in light of the findings from this study, the adoption of the principles of 'practice management' (Mansell et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref134">21</reflink>]) as a means of support for both the workers and the individuals served is recommended, as studies demonstrate positive outcomes for workers including higher job satisfaction (Deveau and McGill [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref135">7</reflink>]), higher engagement (Beadle‐Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref136">1</reflink>]), lower stress and greater trust in management and more positive teamwork experiences (Deveau and McGill [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref137">7</reflink>]). The results from this study suggest that a range of such practical measures are required and that intervention studies are now needed to evaluate the impact of such changes in both the short‐ and long‐term. While this study has provided some initial baseline data that will be of use to Irish policymakers, a single study is not sufficient to elucidate the full complexity of social work experience in Ireland, therefore, additional studies are necessary at the national level in order to fully understand the experience of social care workers. Going forward, we support the recommendation by Silarova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref138">39</reflink>]) that future studies employ theoretically driven measures that are suitable for use with social care workers, such as the WrQoL measure (Easton and Van Laar [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref139">8</reflink>]), thus improving comparability across studies.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-21">Conclusions</hd> <p>The results indicate the importance of the influence of work‐related factors on both quality of working life and well‐being in social care workers working in disability services in Ireland. The study findings add to the limited evidence base available on quality of work life among social care workers in Europe and can be used to inform changes to policy and practice in the Irish context.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The contribution of Kate Ryan in collecting data for this project is gratefully acknowledged, as is the contribution of all of the gatekeepers for distributing the survey questionnaire to their colleagues.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-23">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Galway, Research Ethics Committee (Reference Number: 2022.03.007, March 2022).</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-24">Consent</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-25">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186163448-26">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0186163448-27"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186163448-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Beadle‐Brown, J., C. Bigby, and E. Bould. 2015. " Observing Practice Leadership in Intellectual and Developmental Disability Services." Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 59, no. 12 : 1081 – 1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Blake, M., C. Lambert, F. Gregory, et al. 2024. "The Adult Social Care Workforce and Their Work Related Quality of Life: Findings on Work Related Quality Of Life and Wellbeing—Wave 1." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67b89470b3a80ad63e782c38/Adult‐social‐care‐workforce‐survey‐main‐findings‐report‐february‐2025.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Byrne, C. 2016. " Ready or Not? Statutory Registration, Regulation and Continuing Professional Development for Social Care Workers in Ireland." Administration 62, no. 2 : 9 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> CORU. 2019. "Social Care Workers Employer Information Event." https://coru.ie/news/news‐for‐health‐social‐care‐professionals/scw‐employer‐information‐event‐presentation‐october‐2019.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref22" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> CORU. 2023. "Social Care Workers to Be Regulated as New Statutory Register Opened." https://<ulink href="http://www.coru.ie/news/news&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;health&amp;#8208;social&amp;#8208;care&amp;#8208;professionals/social&amp;#8208;care&amp;#8208;workers&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;be&amp;#8208;regulated&amp;#8208;as&amp;#8208;new&amp;#8208;statutory&amp;#8208;register&amp;#8208;opens.html">www.coru.ie/news/news&amp;#8208;for&amp;#8208;health&amp;#8208;social&amp;#8208;care&amp;#8208;professionals/social&amp;#8208;care&amp;#8208;workers&amp;#8208;to&amp;#8208;be&amp;#8208;regulated&amp;#8208;as&amp;#8208;new&amp;#8208;statutory&amp;#8208;register&amp;#8208;opens.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. 2023. "Action Plan for Disability Services 2024–2026." Dublin: Government of Ireland. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.ie/en/publication/70871&amp;#8208;disability&amp;#8208;action&amp;#8208;plan&amp;#8208;2024&amp;#8208;2026/">www.gov.ie/en/publication/70871&amp;#8208;disability&amp;#8208;action&amp;#8208;plan&amp;#8208;2024&amp;#8208;2026/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref135" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Deveau, R., and P. McGill. 2016. " Impact of Practice Leadership Management Style on Staff Experience in Services for People With Intellectual Disability and Challenging Behaviour: A Further Examination and Partial Replication." Research in Developmental Disabilities 56 : 160 – 1644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Easton, S. A., and D. L. Van Laar. 2018. User Manual for the Work‐Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) Scale: A Measure of Quality of Working Life. 2nd ed. University of Portsmouth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Engström, M., S. Hanberger Jarnheden, and P. Tham. 2023. " Staff Quality of Working Life and Turnover Intentions in Municipal Nursing Care and Social Welfare: A Cross‐Sectional Study." BMC Nursing 22 : 171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912‐023‐01339‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guzman, V., M. Garrido‐Cumbrera, O. Braçe, D. Hewlett, and R. Foley. 2020. " Health and Wellbeing Under COVID‐19: The GreenCovid Survey." Irish Geography 53, no. 2 : 157 – 162. https://irishgeography.ie/index.php/irishgeography/article/view/1420.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanrahan, G. 2023. "Statutory Regulation for Social Care Workers. CORU CEO's Presentation at Social Care Ireland Conference. Carlow, Ireland, March 29th 2023."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey, B. 2007. Evolution of Health and Social Services in Ireland. Combat Poverty Agency.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Health Service Executive. 2024. "Disabilities Employment Report: July 2024." https://<ulink href="http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our&amp;#8208;workforce/workforce&amp;#8208;reporting/disabilities&amp;#8208;employment&amp;#8208;report&amp;#8208;july&amp;#8208;2024.pdf">www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/our&amp;#8208;workforce/workforce&amp;#8208;reporting/disabilities&amp;#8208;employment&amp;#8208;report&amp;#8208;july&amp;#8208;2024.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, V., S. Hynes, M. Hogan, and M. Hodgins. 2023. " Work‐Related Quality of Life of Occupational Therapists in Ireland." British Journal of Occupational Therapy 87, no. 4 : 230 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226231208055.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. " Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis." Qualitative Health Research 15, no. 9 : 1277 – 1288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hussein, S., A.‐M. Towers, S. Palmer, N. Brookes, B. Silarova, and P. Mäkelä. 2022. " Developing a Scale of Care Work‐Related Quality of Life (CWRQoL) for Long‐Term Care Workers in England." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 2 : 945. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020945.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaddourah, B., K. Abu‐Shaheen, and M. Al‐Tannir. 2018. " Quality of Nursing Work Life and Turnover Intention Among Nurses of Tertiary Care Hospitals in Riyadh: A Cross‐Sectional Survey." BMC Nursing 17, no. 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912‐018‐0312‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keegan, C., A. Brick, A. García‐Rodrígues, and L. Hill. 2022. "Projections of Workforce Requirements for Public Acute Hospitals in Ireland, 2019–2035: A Regional Analysis Based on the Hippocrates Model." ESRI Research Series Report 147. ESRI, Dublin. https://doi.org/10.26504/rs147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinman, G. 2021. Managing Stress, Burnout and Fatigue in Health and Social Care. Society of Occupational Medicine. https://<ulink href="http://www.som.org.uk/Managing%5fstress%5fburnout%5fand%5ffatigue%5fin%5fhealth%5fand%5fsocial%5fcare.pdf">www.som.org.uk/Managing%5fstress%5fburnout%5fand%5ffatigue%5fin%5fhealth%5fand%5fsocial%5fcare.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons, D. 2017. "Social Care Workers in Ireland—Drawing on Diverse Representations and Experiences." PhD thesis, University College Cork.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mansell, J., J. Beadle‐Brown, B. Ashman, and J. Ockenden. 2004. Person Centred Active Support: A Multi‐Media Resources for Staff to Enable Participation, Inclusion and Choice for People With Learning Disabilities. Pavilion Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martel, J. P., and G. Dupuis. 2006. " Quality of Work Life: Theoretical and Methodological Problems, and Presentation of a New Model and Measuring Instrument." Social Indicators Research 77 : 333 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐004‐5368‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayring, P. 2000. " Qualitative Content Analysis." Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, no. 2. https://www.qualitative‐research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFadden, P., P. Gillen, J. Moriarty, et al. 2020. Health and Social Care Workers' Quality of Working Life and Coping While Working During the COVID‐19 Pandemic 7th May – 3rd July 2020: Findings From a UK Survey. University of Ulster Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFadden, P., J. Ross, J. Moriarty, et al. 2021. " The Role of Coping in the Wellbeing and Work‐Related Quality of Life of UK Health and Social Care Workers During COVID‐19." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 : 815. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020815.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGill Nursing Collaborative. 2019. "Global Shortage of Nurses." https://<ulink href="http://www.mcgill.ca/nursing/files/nursing/nurse%5fshortages.pdf">www.mcgill.ca/nursing/files/nursing/nurse%5fshortages.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaels, C. E., and P. E. Spector. 1982. " Causes of Employee Turnover: A Test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino Model." Journal of Applied Psychology 67, no. 1 : 53 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.67.1.53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moran, J. 2013. Unfinished Business: Social Policy for Social Care Students in Ireland. Orpen Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulkeen, M. 2016. " Going to Market! An Exploration of Markets in Social Care." Administration 64, no. 2 : 33 – 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pindek, S., and P. E. Spector. 2016. " Organizational Constraints: A Meta‐Analysis of a Major Stressor." Work &amp; Stress 30, no. 1 : 7 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1137376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poku, C. A., J. N. Alem, R. O. Poku, S. A. Osei, E. O. Amoah, and A. M. A. Ofei. 2022. " Quality of Work‐Life and Turnover Intentions Among the Ghanaian Nursing Workforce: A Multicentre Study." PLoS One 17, no. 9 : e0272597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272597.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poon, Y. S. R., Y. P. Lin, P. Griffiths, K. K. Yong, B. Seah, and S. Y. Liaw. 2022. " A Global Overview of Healthcare Workers' Turnover Intention Amid COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review With Future Directions." Human Resources for Health 20, no. 1 : 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960‐022‐00764‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, M., and C. Burke. 2021. Recruitment and Retention in Social Care Work in Ireland. Social Care Ireland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, M., and P. D'Arcy. 2017. Statutory Registration Amongst Social Care Workers. Social Care Ireland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, M., and S. Dashdondog. 2023. Perceptions Around Professionalisation in Social Care Work in Ireland. A Workers Advisory Group Study. Workers Advisory Group, Social Care Ireland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rai, G. S. 2013. " Improving Quality of Working Life Among Nursing Home Staff: Is It Really Needed? " International Journal of Caring Sciences 6, no. 3 : 380 – 391. https://internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org/docs/11.%20Rai.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, C., M. Bergin, and J. S. G. Wells. 2019. " Work‐Related Stress and Well‐Being of Direct Care Workers in Intellectual Disability Services: A Scoping Review of the Literature." International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 67, no. 1 : 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2019.1582907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shukla, K., S. Shahane, and W. D'Souza. 2017. " Role of Demographic and Job‐Related Variables in Determining Work‐Related Quality of Life of Hospital Employees." Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 61, no. 3 : 4 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silarova, B., N. Brookes, S. Palmer, A. M. Towers, and S. Hussein. 2022. " Understanding and Measuring the Work‐Related Quality of Life Among Those Working in Adult Social Care: A Scoping Review." Health &amp; Social Care in the Community 30, no. 5 : 1637 – 1664. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sirgy, M. J., D. Efraty, P. Siegel, and D. J. Lee. 2001. " A New Measure of Quality of Work Life (QWL) Based on Needs Satisfaction and Spillover Theories." Social Indicators Research 55, no. 3 : 241 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010986923468.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spector, P. E., and S. M. Jex. 1998. " Development of Four Self‐Report Measures of Job Stressors and Strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3 : 356 – 367.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topp, C. W., S. D. Østergaard, S. Søndergaard, and P. Bech. 2015. " The WHO‐5 Well‐Being Index: A Systematic Review of the Literature." Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 84, no. 3 : 167 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Towers, A., S. Palmer, N. Brookes, et al. 2022. "Quality of Life at Work—What it Means for the Adult Social Care Workforce in England and Recommendations for Actions." Canterbury: University of Kent.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Laar, D. L., J. A. Edwards, and S. Easton. 2007. " The Work‐Related Quality of Life Scale for Healthcare Workers." Journal of Advanced Nursing 60, no. 3 : 325 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2648.2007.04409.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, C., F. Pichler, and B. C. Hayes. 2007. First European Quality of Life Survey: Quality of Work and Life Satisfaction. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, L., M. Touré, and T. G. Poder. 2023. " Measuring Quality of Life at Work for Healthcare and Social Services Workers: A Systematic Review of Available Instruments." Healthcare Science 2, no. 1 : 173 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organisation. 1998. "Wellbeing Measures in Primary Healthcare/The Depcare Project: Report on a WHO Meeting." Stockholm: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/349766.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Victoria Hogan; Martin Power; Michael Hogan and Margaret Hodgins</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib242" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib240" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref134"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1475182 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Work-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being of Social Care Workers in the Disability Sector in Ireland – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Victoria+Hogan%22">Victoria Hogan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0780-8585">0000-0002-0780-8585</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Power%22">Martin Power</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Hogan%22">Michael Hogan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margaret+Hodgins%22">Margaret Hodgins</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Applied+Research+in+Intellectual+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(3). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 10 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+of+Life%22">Quality of Life</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Satisfaction%22">Job Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Services%22">Social Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counselor+Attitudes%22">Counselor Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Labor+Turnover%22">Labor Turnover</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1111/jar.70087 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1360-2322<br />1468-3148 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Background: Scant attention has been paid to the quality of working life of social care workers in Ireland. This study sought to characterise both the quality of working life and the well-being of social care workers in the disability sector. Method: A cross-sectional survey of social care workers (n = 307) was conducted. Measures of work-related quality of life, well-being, organisational constraints, workload and turnover intention were included in the survey. Results: Experiencing higher organisational constraints, longer work hours and higher workload were related to lower quality of working life, F(9,242) = 24.953, p < 0.001. Higher organisational constraints and higher workload also negatively influenced well-being, F(9,240) = 11.494, p < 0.001. Linear regression indicated that higher turnover intention was influenced by lower quality of working life, F(1, 279) = 306.319, p < 0.001. Conclusions: The results indicate the importance of the influence of work-related factors on both quality of working life and well-being in social care workers in disability services in Ireland. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1475182 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475182 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/jar.70087 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 10 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Quality of Life Type: general – SubjectFull: Job Satisfaction Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Services Type: general – SubjectFull: Disabilities Type: general – SubjectFull: Well Being Type: general – SubjectFull: Social Work Type: general – SubjectFull: Counselor Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Work Environment Type: general – SubjectFull: Labor Turnover Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Ireland Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Work-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being of Social Care Workers in the Disability Sector in Ireland Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Victoria Hogan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Martin Power – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Michael Hogan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Margaret Hodgins IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 05 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1360-2322 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1468-3148 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 38 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
