Witnessing workplace bullying — protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual health and well-being outcomes
Tóm tắt
Most research on workplace bullying has examined the impact of the mistreatment on those exposed. Although bullying also is assumed to have significant ripple effects on bystanders, the empirical evidence for this line of research is highly fragmented and inconclusive. The overarching aim of this planned systematic review and meta-analysis is therefore to determine whether witnessing bullying of others at the workplace is associated with health problems and lower well-being among the observers. To achieve this aim, the review includes an assessment of which theoretical frameworks and methodological designs used in research so far and shed light on which confounders, mediators, and moderators that have been accounted for. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Electronic databases will be searched using pre-defined search terms to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies should report empirical findings on any individual outcome variable assessed among witnesses to workplace harassment and bullying or any overlapping concept. Primary observational studies with cross-sectional or prospective research design, case–control studies, and studies with experimental designs will be included. Qualitative interviews and case studies will be excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with a previously established checklist for studies on workplace bullying. The quality of evidence for an association between witnessing bullying and potential outcomes will be evaluated in accordance with the GRADE system. A random effects meta-analysis will be conducted with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3. We expect that findings on outcomes of bystanding to workplace bullying will provide practitioners with an understanding of the effects workplace bullying may have also on non-targets and the workplace as a whole. Such information is important regarding the development and implementation of effective measures and interventions against bullying. In addition, the review will increase our understanding of existing research gaps and enable us to make recommendations to address them. Our work aligns with the sustainable development agenda to protect workers and reduce inequalities at the workplace. PROSPERO 342006.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition. In: Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Theory, Research, and Practice. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020. p. 3–53.
Nielsen MB, Einarsen SV. What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: an overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggress Violent Beh. 2018;42:71–83.
Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Developments in theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011. p. 3–40.
Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work. The European tradition. In: Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Theory, research and practice. Third. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020. p. 3–54.
Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. J Occupat Organ Psychol. 2010;83(4):955–79.
Verkuil B, Atasayi S, Molendijk ML. Workplace bullying and mental health: a meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Plos One. 2015;10(8):e0135225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135225.
Boudrias V, Trepanier S-G, Salin D, Id, Trepanier S-GOhoo, Salin DOhoo. A systematic review of research on the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the mechanisms involved. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2021;56(101508):17.
Nielsen MB, Magerøy N, Gjerstad J, Einarsen S. Workplace bullying and subsequent health problems. Tidsskrift for den Norske legeforening. J Norwegian Med Assoc. 2014;134(12/13):1233–8.
Nielsen MB, Harris A, Pallesen S, Einarsen SV. Workplace bullying and sleep - a systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;51:101289.
Leach LS, Poyser C, Butterworth P. Workplace bullying and the association with suicidal ideation/thoughts and behaviour: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(1):72–9.
Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. Outcomes of workplace bullying: a meta-analytic review. Work Stress. 2012;26(4):309–32.
Nielsen MB, Indregard AM, Øverland S. Workplace bullying and sickness absence – a systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Scandinavian J Work Environ Health. 2016;42(5):359–70.
Pouwelse M, Mulder R, Mikkelsen EG. The role of bystanders in workplace bullying: an overview of theories and empirical research. In: D'Cruz P, Noronha E, Baillien E, Catley B, Harlos K, Hogh A, et al., editors. Pathways of job-related negative behaviour. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment. 2018. p. 1-39.
Ng K, Niven K, Hoel H. ‘I could help, but . . .’: a dynamic sensemaking model of workplace bullying bystanders. Human Relations. 2019;Online first:1–29.
Niven K, Ng K, Hoel H. The bystanders of workplace bullying. In: Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace, Theory, research and practice. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020. p. 385–408.
Lazarus RS. Coping theory and research - past, present, and future. Psychosom Med. 1993;55(3):234–47.
Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989;44(3):513–24.
Sprigg CA, Niven K, Dawson J, Farley S, Armitage CJ. Witnessing workplace bullying and employee well-being: a two-wave field study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2019;24(2):286–96.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage; 2001.
Danna K, Griffin RW. Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Manage. 1999;25(3):357–84.
Ford MT, Matthews RA, Wooldridge JD, Mishra V, Kakar UM, Strahan SR. How do occupational stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinal studies. Work Stress. 2014;28(1):9–30.
Spector PE. Do Not Cross Me: optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34(2):125–37.
Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein HR. How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. J Educ Behav Statist. 2010;35(2):215–47.
Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(4):408–14.
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2008.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins JPT, Rothstein H. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood: NJ Biostat; 2005.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage; 2004.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H. Meta-analysis Fixed effects vs. random effects. Englewood: NJ Biostat; 2007.
Berkeljon A, Baldwin SA. An introduction to meta-analysis for psychotherapy outcome research. Psychother Res. 2009;19(4–5):511–8.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 2009.
Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein HR, Id, Rothstein HROhoo. How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2010;35(2):215–47.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1–76.
Rugulies R. Studying the effect of the psychosocial work environment on risk of ill-health: towards a more comprehensive assessment of working conditions. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(3):187–91.