Skip to main content

Physical and psychological workloads and their association with occupational fatigue among hospital service personnel

Abstract

Background

Physical and psychological workloads are a vital issue in the workplace. This study aimed to investigate the association between physical and psychological workloads and occupational fatigue among Iranian hospital service personnel. In Iran, hospital service personnel refers to a group of healthcare workers who undertake a range of duties, such as moving and carrying the hospital waste, transporting patients by wheelchair or gurney to the operating room, x-ray department, other wards, or other locations around the facility, performing cleaning tasks such as changing linens, mopping floors, and sterilizing equipment, and following infection control procedures to reduce the risk of spreading germs within the hospital setting.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 198 Iranian hospital service personnel. The response rate was 86%. The data were gathered using 1) The Persian version of the Job Content Questionnaire (P-JCQ) for assessing physical and psychosocial workloads and 2) The Persian version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (P-SOFI-20) for assessing fatigue dimensions.

Results

According to the P-JCQ, the physical and psychological workload intensities were high in 72.7% and 47% of the participants, respectively. Based on the P-SOFI, the participants’ mean scores of “physical fatigue” (21.73 ± 6.2), “psychological fatigue” (13.61 ± 5.76), and “fatigue due to shift work” (18.17 ± 5.6) were moderate, while the mean score of “general fatigue” was high (27.3 ± 6.98). The findings revealed that various types of fatigue are associated with age, gender, marital status, daily working hours, and psychological workload.

Conclusions

Psychological workload was a determinant of occupational fatigue among Iranian hospital service personnel. Hence, an interventional program, including job enrichment, job rotation, and work-rest cycle, is recommended.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Workload is one of the most critical stressors in the workplace. It refers to the amount of physical or mental work performed by workers in a given time frame [1]. Physical workload includes placing the body in a specific posture or condition. The ability to perform physical work depends on age, sex, type of physical activity, environmental factors, heart rate, and body weight [2, 3]. Psychological workload has a multidimensional and complex structure affected by the environment, organizational factors, and psychological and cognitive abilities [4]. Designing ergonomic workstations and proper personnel selection for different occupations increase the workforce’s physical and mental abilities to perform a task [5, 6]. If employees’ physical and mental capabilities do not conform to their job requirements, it will lead to health and safety problems, productivity loss, and increased medical costs [7].

The previous studies have reported a high level of physical and psychological stress and a high workload among healthcare personnel [8,9,10,11]. Workload was among the most stressful and influential factors on service personnel’s behavior and efficiency [12]. Service personnel’s workload was associated with their physical and psychological duties and cognitive and mental tasks [13]. In therapeutic environments, such factors as high speed, high volume of work, and lack of social support could increase workload [14]. High workload, in turn, was one of the reasons for errors among service staff in treatment wards, because it caused them to have insufficient time to carry out their caretaking responsibilities. High workload has been mentioned to affect the quality of service delivery to patients by hospital staff [15, 16]. Evaluation of service personnel’s abilities in terms of costs is vital for employers, and improving them can increase human resources productivity in industries and organizations [17]. Therefore, workload assessment among hospital service personnel is essential to ensure the provision of desired services for patients [18].

Fatigue is a common phenomenon influenced by individual and environmental factors. Due to its adverse effects on health, safety, human productivity, and efficiency, fatigue must be monitored among service personnel. A tired person does not have the power and motivation to perform mental and physical tasks, is slow, and has inefficient performance [19]. Fatigue in workplaces stems from the lack of balance among effort, work duration, and rest time [20]. The negative consequences of occupational fatigue include increased human error, memory damage, decreased decision-making and reasoning power, increased risk of depression and anxiety, reduced efficiency, and disability. Therefore, fatigue leads to lower job performance and reduces the ability to perform physical and mental work [21,22,23,24,25,26].

Hospital service personnel, similar to other occupations, are at risk of work-related injuries due to fatigue, and the number of these injuries is equal to or even more than those in high-risk occupations [27]. Thus, this job group has been ranked sixth among the top ten jobs with a high risk of injury [28].

In Iran, hospital service personnel refers to a group of healthcare workers who undertake a range of duties, such as moving and carrying the hospital waste, transporting patients by wheelchair or gurney to the operating room, x-ray department, other wards, or other locations around the facility, performing cleaning tasks such as changing linens, mopping floors, and sterilizing equipment, and following infection control procedures to reduce the risk of spreading germs within the hospital setting. These duties include physically (e.g., prolonged static/awkward postures, extra force exertion, repetitive motions, manual material handling, and contact stress) and psychosocially (e.g., high demands and low job control or social support) demanding tasks [29]. In this context, a previous study reported that about 20% of hospital service personnel belonged to the high category of psychological workload [29].

The current study aimed to assess the association between physical and psychological workloads and occupational fatigue among Iranian hospital service personnel.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was performed on Iranian hospital service personnel affiliated to Yasuj University of Medical Sciences (YUMS), Iran. Totally, 198 full-time service personnel with at least one year of work experience were selected after being provided with oral information about the study objectives and protocol. In this study, the response rate was 86%.

The nature of work and working conditions of the participants were almost similar, and attempts were made to avoid confounding variables that would distort the findings. Subjects were selected by census sampling method from the general wards of 3 hospitals of YUMS. Individuals who worked in hospital wards with different nature of work did not include in the study.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS). Additionally, the study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 2013 [30].

At first, the study was explained orally to potential subjects, and all pertinent information, such as purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and alternatives to participation was provided. All subjects were allowed an ample opportunity to ask questions. Those hospital service personnel willing to cooperate in this study signed a written informed consent form and were enrolled. Then, the participants completed the paper version questionnaires described below through self-reporting at their workplace during their work shift. After collecting the data from each subject, the questionnaires were checked by the researchers. If important data had not been inserted, the participant was asked to present any questions or ambiguities and after receiving an explanation, enter the missing information.

Data collection

The data were collected using the following instruments:

Demographic/occupational questionnaire

This questionnaire included questions about age (years), height (cm), weight (kg), work experience (years): It means the length of time that a person has been working as a hospital service personnel in the affiliated hospital, working hours per day, sex (male and female), marital status (single and married), number of children, and education level (diploma and lower, associate degree, and bachelor’s and higher degrees).

The Persian version of the Job Content Questionnaire (P-JCQ)

This questionnaire was used to assess the service personnel’s perception and judgment about the workplace’s physical and psychological workloads. In this questionnaire, the physical and psychological workloads were measured using 12 and 8 items, respectively. The answer to each item was scored on a four-point scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). For physical workload, the responses were dichotomized (1 and 2 versus 3 and 4). They were summed up as a new variable called “total physical workload”, the value of which varied from 0 to 12. Then, based on the total score of physical workload, the participants were classified into three groups; i.e., low (0 to 2), average (3 to 9), and high (10 to 12) physical workload. For psychological workload, the responses were obtained as two states (1 and 2 versus 3 and 4) and then, they were summed up as a new variable called “total psychological workload”, the value of which varied from zero to eight. Based on the total psychological workload score, the participants were classified into two groups, namely low (0 to 5) and high (6 to 8) psychological workload. The psychometric properties of the P-JCQ have been reviewed and approved by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82 [31].

The Persian version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (P-SOFI)

The SOFI-20 consisted of 20 items answered using an 11-point numerical rating scale (0 = not at all and 10 = to a very high degree). The items were categorized into five dimensions, including “lack of energy”, “physical exertion”, “physical discomfort”, “lack of motivation”, and “sleepiness”. The scores of each dimension could range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 40. Then, four types of fatigue are calculated:

  • a) Physical fatigue: This type of fatigue is calculated by the mean score of the “physical exertion”, and “physical discomfort” dimensions.

  • b) Psychological fatigue: This type of fatigue is calculated by the mean score of the “lack of motivation” and “sleepiness” dimensions.

  • c) Fatigue due to shift work: This type of fatigue is calculated by the mean score of the “sleepiness”, “lack of energy”, and “lack of motivation” dimensions.

  • d) General fatigue: The score of general fatigue is the mean score of the “lack of energy” dimension items.

Based on the SOFI-20 users’ guide, the score of each dimension was rated based on severity; i.e., low (mean score < 8.5), medium (8.5 < mean score < 23.5), and high (mean score > 23.5) levels of fatigue, based on the quartiles of scores distribution [32, 33]. The psychometric properties of P-SOFI-20 were confirmed by Javadpour et al. [34].

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to analyze the data. At first, Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests were used to test the normality of the data. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, and mean ± standard deviation were used for the description of demographic/occupational details (Table 1), physical and psychological workloads frequencies (Table 2), and the frequency of fatigue types derived from the P-SOFI (Table 3). A multiple linear regression model was used for evaluating relationships between P-SOFI subscales (physical fatigue, psychological fatigue, fatigue due to shift work, general fatigue) as continuous targets and potential predictors, including age, daily working hours, work experience, gender, marital status, number of children, education level, and physical and psychological workloads. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Table 1 Demographic/occupational details of the studied hospital service personnel (n = 198)
Table 2 Physical and psychological workloads among the participants based on the P-JCQ (n = 198)
Table 3 The frequency of fatigue types derived from the P-SOFI (n = 198)

Results

Some demographic/occupational details of the studied hospital service personnel have been presented in Table 1.

Physical and psychological workloads assessed by the P-JCQ

The data related to the physical and psychological workloads derived from the P-JCQ have been presented in Table 2. Accordingly, 27.3% and 72.7% of the participants perceived physical workload with moderate and high intensity, respectively. In addition, the intensity of psychological workload was low in 53% and high in 47% of the participants. The means ± standard deviations of physical and psychological workloads were 10.56 ± 2.05 and 5.53 ± 1.19, respectively.

Occupational fatigue assessed by the P-SOFI

Based on the P-SOFI, 30.3%, 4.5%, 14.1%, and 80.8% of the participants had severe “physical fatigue”, “psychological fatigue”, “fatigue due to shift work”, and “general fatigue”, respectively (Table 3). Besides, the means ± standard deviations of “physical fatigue”, “psychological fatigue”, “fatigue due to shift work”, and “general fatigue” were 21.73 ± 6.20, 13.61 ± 5.76, 18.17 ± 5.62, and 27.30 ± 6.98, respectively.

Potential factors associated with various types of the occupational fatigue

Table 4 shows the association between fatigue derived from the P-SOFI and physical and psychological workloads based on the P-JCQ. As shown, various types of fatigue are associated with age, gender, marital status, daily working hours, and psychological workload (p < 0.05).

Table 4 Associations between fatigue derived from the P-SOFI and physical and psychological workloads based on the P-JCQ (N = 198)

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the association between physical and psychological workloads and occupational fatigue among Iranian hospital service personnel. The findings revealed no significant relationship between physical workload and occupational fatigue. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant association between psychological workload and various occupational fatigue types, including “physical fatigue”, “psychological fatigue”, “fatigue due to shiftwork”, and “general fatigue”.

Physical and psychological workloads assessed by the P-JCQ

The current study results showed that 27.3% and 72.7% of the participants perceived physical workload with moderate and high intensity, respectively. In addition, the intensity of psychological workload was reported to be low in 53% and high in 47% of the participants. The means ± standard deviations of the physical and psychological workloads were 10.56 ± 2.05 and 5.53 ± 1.19, respectively. These findings were not consistent with those obtained by Choobineh et al. [8]. Some studies have shown that most participants perceived a high mental workload [10, 11, 35,36,37,38,39], while most of the hospital service personnel in the current study (53%) perceived a low level of psychological workload. Salmani Nodooshan et al. also reported that 83.4% of the hospital attendants belonged to the low category of psychological workload [29]. These differences could be attributed to the population under investigation, type of physical workload, type of work environment, difference in job responsibilities, and different assessment tools.

Occupational fatigue assessed by the P-SOFI

The findings of the present study indicated that the means ± standard deviations of “physical fatigue”, “psychological fatigue”, “fatigue due to shift work”, and “general fatigue” were 21.73 ± 6.20, 13.61 ± 5.76, 18.17 ± 5.62, and 27.30 ± 6.98, respectively. These findings were in agreement with those of the study conducted by Asadi et al. [40] and the Cochran study, which demonstrated moderate chronic fatigue among the participants [41]. The results were also consistent with those of a study performed using the Seman-Perlie Questionnaire [42], and research carried out by Azmoon et al. using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) [43]. In contrast, Choobineh et al. [31] and Batak et al. (using the Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS)) [44] reported high levels of fatigue.

Potential factors associated with various types of the occupational fatigue

Our findings revealed that various types of fatigue are positively associated with age, female gender, unmarried status, daily working hours, and psychological workload.

In this context, it has been revealed that occupational fatigue is associated with age [45] and female gender [46,47,48]. Dochi et al. in their study verified that unmarried status was more associated with fatigue [45, 49]. In addition, the literature suggests that there is an association between occupational fatigue and working long hours [50].

Although the hospital service personnel were involved in physical tasks, no significant relationships were found between physical workload and fatigue in the current study. This finding was in line with that of the research conducted by Salmani Nodooshan et al. [29], but was contrary to those of some other studies [51, 52]. This difference could be attributed to different data gathering tools and work environments. In addition, the participants might not have answered the questions honestly because of being afraid of losing their jobs. The society’s economic status and the participants’ education levels might have played a role (almost 87% of the participants had below bachelor’s degrees).

On the other hand, the current study results showed a significant correlation between psychological workload based on the P-JCQ and various types of fatigue derived from the P-SOFI, which was inconsistent with the study results performed by Arellano et al. [53]. However, Motamedzade et al. [54] and Fan et al. [55] reported a significant association between psychological workload and occupational fatigue.

Although at first glance, it seems that the fatigue of the studied subjects is more influenced by physical workload, the findings of our study demonstrated that their fatigue is more influenced by psychological workload. In this context, we found that job demands such as time pressure can lead to a high psychological workload. According to psychological job demands, hospital service personnel are under pressure and at risk of job fatigue. On the other hand, it was revealed that this working group has little control over various aspects of their jobs. In this context, the findings of a meta-analysis study showed that high psychological workload was consistently related to depressive symptoms, mental disorders, and employees’ intention to leave the job [56].

Based on our findings, paying attention to the psychological workload as a predictor of hospital service personnel fatigue has special importance and place. So, in this context, there are suggestions for reducing physical/psychological workloads and as well fatigue among hospital service personnel:

  • − Ensuring that the physical/ psychological workloads are in line with workers’ capabilities and resources.

  • − Organizational support could reduce work environment stressors to relieve physical/psychological workloads and fatigue.

  • − Allowing for recovery from demanding tasks could increase control over work pace.

  • − Designing jobs to provide meaning, stimulation, and opportunities for hospital service personnel to use their skills.

  • − Clearly defining hospital service personnel roles and responsibilities.

  • − Giving hospital service personnel opportunities to participate in decisions and actions affecting their jobs.

  • − Encouraging work-life balance through family-friendly benefits and policies.

Limitations

Given the cross-sectional design of the study and data collection by self-report, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Moreover, this study was performed among hospital service personnel in Yasuj. Therefore, the results might not be generalized to other working groups. Furthermore, this study was conducted on a small sample. Hence, a larger sample size is needed to achieve more robust results in this context.

Conclusion

In this study, most participants experienced a high physical workload in their work environment. The “general fatigue” was the most significant perceived fatigue by the hospital services personnel. In addition, the psychological workload was one of the determinants of job fatigue perceived by the hospital service personnel. Thus, an interventional program, including job rotation between different hospital wards and work-rest cycle, is proposed to improve the physical and psychological workloads and reduce job fatigue among hospital service staff.

Availability of data and materials

We are unable to share data publicly because of ethical and legal restrictions. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

P-JCQ:

Persian version of the Job Content Questionnaire

P-SOFI:

Persian version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory

MFI:

Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory

PFS:

Piper Fatigue Scale

References

  1. Hendy KC, Liao J, Milgram P. Combining time and intensity effects in assessing operator information-processing load. Hum Factors. 1997;39(1):30–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kiss P, De Meester M, Maes C, De Vriese S, De Smet A-M, Coelis M, et al. Inspanningstolerantie en lichaamsvet bij Vlaamse brandweermannen: eerste resultaten. Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde. 2010;66(13):662–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Laukkanen JA, Laaksonen D, Lakka TA, Savonen K, Rauramaa R, Mäkikallio T, et al. Determinants of cardiorespiratory fitness in men aged 42 to 60 years with and without cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(11):1598–604.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinger MB, Reddy SB, Slagle JM. Multiple measures of anesthesia workload during teaching and nonteaching cases. Anesth Analg. 2004;98(5):1419–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. van den Berg T, Elders L, de Zwart B, Burdorf A. The effects of work-related and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66(4):211–20.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Karazman R, Kloimüller I, Geissler H, Karazmanmorawetz I. “Effect typology” and work ability index: evaluating the success of health promotion in elder workforce. Exp Aging Res. 1999;25(4):313–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vigatto R, Alexandre NMC, Correa Filho HR. Development of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Spine. 2007;32(4):481–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Choobineh A, Rajaeefard A, Neghab M. Perceived demands and musculoskeletal disorders among hospital nurses. Hakim Res J. 2007;10(2):70–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Arghami S, Kamali K, Radanfar F. Task performance induced workload in nursing. JOHE. 2015;2(3):45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Asgari H, Khalkhali H, Mohebbi I. Analytical survey on relation between workload with occupational burnout dimensions in ICU nurses. Nurs Midwifery J. 2016;14(1):30–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Taheri MR, Khorvash F, Hasan ZA. Assessment of mental workload and relationship with needle stick injuries among Isfahan Alzahra hospital nurses. Medical J Mashhad Univ Med Sci. 2016;58(10):570–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, Kohn LT. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Myny D, Van Hecke A, De Bacquer D, Verhaeghe S, Gobert M, Defloor T, et al. Determining a set of measurable and relevant factors affecting nursing workload in the acute care hospital setting: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(4):427–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. LaDou J, Harrison R. Current occupational & environmental medicine. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007.

  15. Carayon P, Gürses AP. A human factors engineering conceptual framework of nursing workload and patient safety in intensive care units. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2005;21(5):284–301.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Keijsers GJ, Schaufeli WB, Le Blanc PM, Zwerts C, Miranda DR. Performance and burnout in intensive care units. Work Stress. 1995;9(4):513–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahonen G, Bjurström LM, Hussi T, Räsänen K. Economic effectiveness of the maintenance and promotion of work ability. In: Peltomäki P, Hussi T, Julin H, Launis K, Liira J, editors. Maintenance of work ability - research and assessment: summaries. Bilbao: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Publications; 2002. p. 33–44.

  18. de Jong AE, Leeman J, Middelkoop E. Development of a nursing workload measurement instrument in burn care. Burns. 2009;35(7):942–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hosseinzadeh K, Choobineh A, Ghaem H. Validity and reliability of the Farsi version of the individual strength questionnaire checklist in the Iranian working population. Armaghane Danesh. 2013;18(4):295–304.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ahsberg E, Gamberale F, Gustafsson K. Perceived fatigue after mental work: an experimental evaluation of a fatigue inventory. Ergonomics. 2000;43(2):252–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gutiérrez JLG, Jiménez BM, Hernández EG, López AL. Spanish version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (SOFI): Factorial replication, reliability and validity. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35(8):737–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kristal-Boneh E, Froom P, Harari G, Ribak J. Fatigue among Israeli industrial employees. J Occup Environ Med. 1996;38(11):1145–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Skinner NJ, Dorrian J. A work-life perspective on sleep and fatigue–looking beyond shift workers. Ind Health. 2015;53(5):417–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Desmond PA, Neubauer MC, Matthews G, Hancock PA. The Handbook of operator fatigue. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mellor G, John St W. Fatigue and work safety behavior in men during early fatherhood. Am J Mens Health. 2012;6(1):80–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Duta M, Alford C, Wilson S, Tarassenko L. Neural network analysis of the mastoid EEG for the assessment of vigilance. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 2004;17(2):171–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li J, Wolf L, Evanoff B. Use of mechanical patient lifts decreased musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries among health care workers. Inj Prev. 2004;10(4):212–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dockrell S, Johnson M, Ganly J. Analysis of the causes and costs of manual handling incidents in the health care sector. Dublin: Health and Safety Authority Publications; 2007.

  29. Salmani Nodooshan H, Rastipisheh P, Yadegarfar G, Daneshmandi H, Alighanbari N, Taheri S. The effect of work-related psychosocial stressors on musculoskeletal disorder symptoms in hospital attendants. Work. 2020;67(2):477–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Choobineh A, Ghaem H, Ahmedinejad P. Validity and reliability of the Persian [Farsi] version of the Job Content Questionnaire: a study among hospital nurses. E Mediterr Health J. 2011;17(4):335–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Åhsberg E, Gamberale F. Perceived fatigue during physical work: an experimental evaluation of a fatigue inventory. Int J Ind Ergon. 1998;21(2):117–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Choobineh A, Javadpour F, Azmoon H, Keshavarzi S, Daneshmandi H. The prevalence of fatigue, sleepiness, and sleep disorders among petrochemical employees in Iran. Fatigue: Biomed Health Behavior. 2018;6(3):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Javadpour F, Keshavarzi S, Choobineh A, Aghabaigi M. Validity and reliability of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (SOFI-20) among Iranian working population. Iranian J Ergon. 2015;3(1):50–8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Arab Z, Piri L, Arsalani N, Tabatabai Ghomshe F, Biglarian A. The correlation of workload and work ability with job stress in nursing staff. JHPM. 2015;4(1):21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Safari S, Mohammadi-Bolbanabad H, Kazemi M. Evaluation mental work load in nursing critical care unit with National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). J Health Sys Res. 2013;9(6):613–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hassanzadeh-Rangi N, Khosravi Y, Sarami M, Jafari MJ. Mental workload and its relation with fatigue among urban bus drivers. J Occup Hyg. 2016;4(1):66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sarsangi V, Saberi H, Hannani M, Honarjoo F, Salim Abadi M, Goroohi M, et al. Mental workload and its affected factors among nurses in Kashan province during 2014. JRUMS. 2015;14(1):25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zakerian SA, Abbasinia M, Mohammadian F, Fathi A, Rahmani A, Ahmadnezhad I, et al. The relationship between workload and quality of life among hospital staffs. J Ergonomics. 2013;1(1):43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Asadi S, Khalkhali H, Allahyari T, Choobineh A. An investigation of the relationship between psychosocial work factors and fatigue among nurses. J Ergonomics. 2017;5(2):9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cochran KR. A measure of perceived fatigue among nurses in Western North Carolina. North Carolina: Gardner-Webb University; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zamanian Z, Hasanzade J. Effects of work shifts and mental workload on chronic fatigue among female nurses in intensive care units. JHSSS. 2015;3(3):113–8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Azmoon H, Nodooshan HS, Jalilian H, Choobineh A, Shouroki FK. The relationship between fatigue and job burnout dimensions in hospital nurses. Health Scope. 2018;7(2):e80335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Batak T, Gvozdenović L, Bokan D, Bokan D. The impact of nurses’ shift work on the fatigue level. South Eastern Europe Health Sci J. 2013;3(2):120–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Oentoro S. Kampanye atasi kelelahan mental dan fisik. Jakarta: UI Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Engberg I, Segerstedt J, Waller G, Wennberg P, Eliasson M. Fatigue in the general population-associations to age, sex, socioeconomic status, physical activity, sitting time and self-rated health: the northern Sweden MONICA study 2014. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):654.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bensing JM, Hulsman RL, Schreurs KM. Gender differences in fatigue: biopsychosocial factors relating to fatigue in men and women. Med Care. 1999;37(10):1078–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mayasari D, Vilia A. Analysis of Factors Correlated to Work Fatigue of Hospital Nurses in BandarLampung. KnE Life Sciences. 2018;4(4):375–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dochi M, Suwazono Y, Oishi M, Sakata K, Kobayashi E, Nogawa K. The relation between cumulative fatigue and marital status in Japanese workers. Behav Med. 2007;33(2):55–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. White J, Beswick J. Working long hours. Merseyside: Health and Safety Executive Publications; 2003.

  51. Coutinho H, Queirós C, Henriques A, Norton P, Alves E. Work-related determinants of psychosocial risk factors among employees in the hospital setting. Work. 2018;61(4):551–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Weigl M, Schneider A, Hoffmann F, Angerer P. Work stress, burnout, and perceived quality of care: a cross-sectional study among hospital pediatricians. Eur J Pediatr. 2015;174(9):1237–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Arellano J, Martinez J, Pérez J, Alcaraz J. Relationship between workload and fatigue among Mexican assembly. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;3:315.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Motamedzade M, Abbasinia M, Parvari R, Oliaie M, Karimi S, Mohammadi P. Mental workload and its association with fatigue in operating room personnel of Hamadan hospitals, Iran, 2016. J Occup Health Epidemiol. 2017;6(2):98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Fan J, Smith A. Mental workload and other causes of different types of fatigue in rail staff. In: Longo L, Leva M, editors. Human mental workload: models and applications. Berlin: Springer; 2018. p. 147–59.

  56. Stansfeld S, Candy B. Psychosocial work environment and mental health-a meta-analytic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(6):443–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was extracted from the thesis written by Mr. Morteza Ahmadi, MSc. student of Occupational Health Engineering. Hereby, the authors would like to appreciate the hospital managers, supervisors, and service personnel for their valuable cooperation. They would also like to thank Ms. A. Keivanshekouh at the Research Improvement Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for improving the use of English in the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was financially supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (grant No. 96–01-04–16705).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MA was involved in the study design, data collection, drafting of the manuscript. AC, AM, and HD were involved in the study design, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hadi Daneshmandi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Reference number: IR.SUMS.REC.1397.259) and conducted according to the Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients who participated in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable' for that section.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmadi, M., Choobineh, A., Mousavizadeh, A. et al. Physical and psychological workloads and their association with occupational fatigue among hospital service personnel. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 1150 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08530-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08530-0

Keywords

  • Hospital service personnel
  • Iran
  • Occupational fatigue
  • Physical workload
  • Psychological workload