[Experimental] List of manuscripts available for review volunteers
2 manuscripts available for review volunteers
November 19, 2017
Background. Satisfaction evaluation is widely used in healthcare systems around the world to improve healthcare service quality and levels, in order to obtain better health outcomes. In the evaluation of healthcare reform, patient and medical staff satisfaction with this reform is a key criterion. The aim of this study was to measure employee work satisfaction and patient satisfaction status in the Wuhan region, China; the unsatisfactory factors as discovered through the evaluation will be used as a reference by healthcare policy makers and management so that they can adopt reasonable and effective measures to decrease the risk of dissatisfaction in the future. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 14 medical institutions in Wuhan from October to November 2016. The medical institutions included public general hospitals (tertiary and secondary) and community healthcare service centers/stations (primary). Stratified sampling of target medical staff and patients was carried out and the final valid sample comprised a total of 696 medical staff and 668 patients. Results. In the Wuhan area, it was found that the reliability levels of medical staff work satisfaction scales and patient satisfaction scales comprised Cronbach's alpha=0.973 and Cronbach's alpha=0.949, respectively. The studies in Wuhan and Guangzhou showed that the psychometric characteristics of the scales were basically the same. The overall satisfaction levels of medical staff and patients were 58.28±14.60 and 65.82±14.66, respectively. The medical staff satisfaction ranking in sequence from most to least satisfied was: work itself, work environment and atmosphere, hospital management, practicing environment, and job rewards. The patient satisfaction ranking in sequence from most to least satisfied was: physician-patient relationship and communication, service organization and facilities, continuity and collaboration of medical care, access to relevant information and support, and healthcare and related services. There were differences in the overall satisfaction levels of medical staff based on gender, age, educational level, job title, nature of the job, employment status, and whether staff were at the standardized training stage (p<.05 or .01). There was no statistically significant difference in various demographic variables in terms of overall patient satisfaction (p>.05). Discussion. The overall satisfaction evaluation of medical staff was average. In the future, healthcare policy makers and management staff of medical institutions should focus on job rewards and practicing environment in order to decrease the risk of dissatisfaction amongst medical staff. This would allow them to increase their work happiness and sense of belonging, which in turn would allow them to provide better medical services to patients. The overall patient evaluation was satisfactory, with patients satisfied at all levels of the satisfaction evaluation.
November 15, 2017

Objective: The analysis of ill-health related job loss may be a relevant indicator for the prioritization of actions in the workplaces or in the field of public health, and a target for health promotion. The aim of this study was to analyse the medical causes, the incidence, and the characteristics of employees medically unfit to their job.

Methods: This one-year prospective study included all workers followed by occupational physicians in an occupational health service in the South of the France. Our study design allowed two data frames to be merged (followed up workers and “unfit” patients who lost their jobs due to ill-health). We performed a multivariate analysis in order to adjust the Odds ratio for the age groups, sex, occupation and the activity sectors which are strongly associated with job loss.

Results: Seventeen occupational physicians followed 51,132 workers. The all-cause incidence of being unfit to return to one’s job was 0.778%. The two main causes of being unfit for one’s job were musculoskeletal disorders (47.2%) and psychopathology (38.4%). Being over 50 years old [Odds ratio (OR) 2.63, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [2.13-3.25] and being a woman [OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.91] were associated with the all-cause unfitness, independent of occupations and activity sectors.

Conclusions: Identification of occupational and demographic determinants independently associated with ill-health related job loss may provide significant and cost-effective arguments for health promotion and job loss prevention.


Is this open peer review?

No, peer review is still single-blind and all recommendations are private between the authors and Academic Editor. However, any reviewer has the option to sign their report, and once accepted for publication then that review can be shown publicly - again this is optional.

Will I be guaranteed to review if I volunteer?

No. Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. This is for many reasons. For one, reviewers must have relevant qualifications for any manuscript and void of any conflicts of interest. Additionally, it could be that enough reviewers have accepted an invitation to review already, in which case we would not invite any more.

Why aren't there more manuscripts available?

Manuscripts are shown when authors have opted-in for obtaining reviewers through the reviewer-match service. Additionally, there may already be enough reviewers found through other means, for example, invitations sent by the Academic Editor in charge.

What are the editorial criteria?

Please visit the editorial criteria page for initial guidance. You will also be given additional information if invited to review.