Healthcare Professional, Informal Caregiver
Conditions
Keywords
Healthcare Professional, Health Professional, Health Care Professional, Informal Caregiver, Informal Carer, Cohort, Switzerland, Health Personnel
Brief summary
The healthcare system is continuously evolving to adapt to the population's needs, both in terms of healthcare practices, and in financial and organizational aspects. The current COVID-19 pandemic has added additional pressure to the healthcare system and shown its limits in terms of preparedness. It has also shown once again that both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and informal caregivers (ICs) play a central role for the functioning of the healthcare system. An increasing number of studies are alerting on HCPs' situation, regarding their physical and mental health (e.g. emotional exhaustion, professional well-being) on the one hand, and the functioning of the healthcare system (e.g. absenteeism, turnover, career change) on the other hand. Besides healthcare professionals, ICs, defined as a person in the immediate entourage of an individual whose health and/or autonomy is impaired and who requires assistance with certain \[basic or instrumental\] activities of daily living. The IC provides the person, on a non-professional and informal basis, and on a regular basis, with assistance, care or presence services of varying nature and intensity, designed to compensate for their incapacities or difficulties or to ensure their safety, identity and social ties. Caring for others has shown to have negative impact on the ICs' life, in terms of health-related implications, psychological burden, quality of life, etc. Despite being increasingly recognized as having a key role in the provision of care, they have only been limitedly considered in studies on healthcare professionals. In that context, the investigators develop SCOHPICA project, the Swiss cohort of healthcare professionals and informal caregivers, which is an open prospective national cohort using a concurrent embedded mixed method design. This project targets all types of HCPs and ICs, and will investigate determinants of intent to stay and well-being according to participants' trajectories.
Interventions
OTHERElectronic surveys
Online questionnaires is used to collect data, at recruitment and follow-up once a year. For the ICs, paper questionnaire will be provided upon request.
OTHERQualitative Interviews
Remote focus groups or semi-structured interviews will be proposed to a subsample of the participants, first in 2025 and then every two years
Sponsors
Institut et Haute Ecole de la Santé la Source
University of Lausanne Hospitals
Haute école de travail social et de la santé Lausanne - HETSL
Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisante), University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
(HCPs): * Working as HCP, in any profession * Taking care of patients currently and actively * Working in any health work setting * Working as an independent or a salaried * Working in Switzerland
Exclusion criteria
(HCPs): * Being retired at baseline * Unable to read or speak in one of the national languages: German, French, Italian Inclusion Criteria (ICs): * Being informal cargiver * Aged 18 and over (adults)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Professional trajectories (HCPs), constructed from socio-professional variables [1] | At baseline | Professional trajectories will be formulated based on socio-professional information (current and past occupation, education, work setting, career continuity, part-time contracts). Clustering procedures will be used to group healthcare professionals with similar trajectories, building thus a typology of professional trajectories in the Swiss health workforce. |
| Professional trajectories (HCPs), constructed from socio-professional variables [2] | 1 year after the baseline | Follow-up data will be used to complement the professional trajectories constructed on baseline socio-professional information. Changes in the variables which form the trajectories will be assessed and new typologies will be derived from the enhanced trajectories. |
| Professional trajectories (HCPs), constructed from socio-professional variables [3] | 2 years after the baseline | Follow-up data will be used to complement the professional trajectories constructed on baseline socio-professional information. Changes in the variables which form the trajectories will be assessed and new typologies will be derived from the enhanced trajectories. |
| Professional trajectories (HCPs), constructed from socio-professional variables [4] | 3 years after the baseline | Follow-up data will be used to complement the professional trajectories constructed on baseline socio-professional information. Changes in the variables which form the trajectories will be assessed and new typologies will be derived from the enhanced trajectories. |
| Professional trajectories (HCPs), constructed from socio-professional variables [5] | 4 years after the baseline | Follow-up data will be used to complement the professional trajectories constructed on baseline socio-professional information. Changes in the variables which form the trajectories will be assessed and new typologies will be derived from the enhanced trajectories. |
| Intention to stay in the profession/position (HCPs) [1] | At baseline | Assessed using two questions: 1) intent to stay in the profession and 2) intent to stay in the current position |
| Intention to stay in the profession/position (HCPs) [2] | 1 year after the baseline | Assessed using two questions: 1) intent to stay in the profession and 2) intent to stay in the current position |
| Intention to stay in the profession/position (HCPs) [3] | 2 years after the baseline | Assessed using two questions: 1) intent to stay in the profession and 2) intent to stay in the current position |
| Intention to stay in the profession/position (HCPs) [4] | 3 years after the baseline | Assessed using two questions: 1) intent to stay in the profession and 2) intent to stay in the current position |
| Intention to stay in the profession/position (HCPs) [5] | 4 years after the baseline | Assessed using two questions: 1) intent to stay in the profession and 2) intent to stay in the current position |
| Intention to leave the profession/position/health sector (HCPs) [1] | At baseline | Assessed using three questions: within next 5 years …1) intent to leave the profession, 2) intent to leave the current position and 3) intent to leave the health sector |
| Intention to leave the profession/position/health sector (HCPs) [2] | 1 year after the baseline | Assessed using three questions: within next 5 years …1) intent to leave the profession, 2) intent to leave the current position and 3) intent to leave the health sector |
| Intention to leave the profession/position/health sector (HCPs) [3] | 2 years after the baseline | Assessed using three questions: within next 5 years …1) intent to leave the profession, 2) intent to leave the current position and 3) intent to leave the health sector |
| Intention to leave the profession/position/health sector (HCPs) [4] | 3 years after the baseline | Assessed using three questions: within next 5 years …1) intent to leave the profession, 2) intent to leave the current position and 3) intent to leave the health sector |
| Intention to leave the profession/position/health sector (HCPs) [5] | 4 years after the baseline | Assessed using three questions: within next 5 years …1) intent to leave the profession, 2) intent to leave the current position and 3) intent to leave the health sector |
| Well-being (HCPs) [1] | At baseline | Assessed using the10 items of the Flourish Index (FI). FI score can range from 0 (lowest response category for the 10 items) to 10 (highest response category for the 10 items). High scores imply that respondents perceive themselves very positively in terms of human flourishing. |
| Well-being (HCPs) [2] | 1 year after the baseline | Assessed using the10 items of the Flourish Index (FI). FI score can range from 0 (lowest response category for the 10 items) to 10 (highest response category for the 10 items). High scores imply that respondents perceive themselves very positively in terms of human flourishing. |
| Well-being (HCPs) [3] | 2 years after the baseline | Assessed using the10 items of the Flourish Index (FI). FI score can range from 0 (lowest response category for the 10 items) to 10 (highest response category for the 10 items). High scores imply that respondents perceive themselves very positively in terms of human flourishing. |
| Well-being (HCPs) [4] | 3 years after the baseline | Assessed using the10 items of the Flourish Index (FI). FI score can range from 0 (lowest response category for the 10 items) to 10 (highest response category for the 10 items). High scores imply that respondents perceive themselves very positively in terms of human flourishing. |
| Well-being (HCPs) [5] | 4 years after the baseline | Assessed using the10 items of the Flourish Index (FI). FI score can range from 0 (lowest response category for the 10 items) to 10 (highest response category for the 10 items). High scores imply that respondents perceive themselves very positively in terms of human flourishing. |
Countries
Switzerland
Contacts
Primary ContactStudy coordinator
Outcome results
None listed