Background: The social gradient in chronic disease (CD) is well-documented, and the ability to effectively self-manage is crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality from CD. This systematic review aimed to assess the moderating effect of socioeconomic status on self-management support (SMS) interventions in relation to participation, retention and post-intervention outcomes. Methods: Six databases were searched for studies of any design published until December 2018. Eligible studies reported on outcomes from SMS interventions for adults with chronic disease, where socioeconomic status was recorded and a between-groups comparison on SES was made. Possible outcomes were participation rates, retention rates and clinical or behavioural post-intervention results. Results: Nineteen studies were retrieved, including five studies on participation, five on attrition and nine studies reporting on outcomes following SMS intervention. All participation studies reported reduced engagement in low SES cohorts. Studies assessing retention and post-intervention outcomes had variable results, related to the diversity of interventions. A reduction in health disparity was seen in longer interventions that were individually tailored. Most studies did not provide a theoretical justification for the intervention being investigated, although four studies referred to Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy. Conclusions: The limited research suggests that socioeconomic status does moderate the efficacy of SMS interventions, such that without careful tailoring and direct targeting of barriers to self-management, SMS may exacerbate the social gradient in chronic disease outcomes. Screening for patient disadvantage or workload, rather than simply recording SES, may increase the chances of tailored interventions being directed to those most likely to benefit from them. Future interventions for low SES populations should consider focussing more on treatment burden and patient capacity. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42019124760. Registration date 17/4/19.

Violence against health care workers is a major issue in health care organisations and is estimated to affect 95% of workers, presenting an enormous risk for workers and employers. Current interventions generally aim at managing rather than preventing or minimising violent incidents. To create better-targeted interventions, it has been suggested to shift attention to the perpetrators of violence. The aim of this study was to identify and discuss the perceptions, held by Emergency Department nurses, about perpetrators of occupational violence and aggression. Two focus groups were conducted with Emergency Department nurses at a major metropolitan hospital in Australia. In the focus groups, the nurses’ perceptions about perpetrators of violence against health care workers were identified and discussed. The results were analysed using descriptive analysis. This study confirmed that violence is a major issue for Emergency Department nurses and has a considerable impact on them. Participants acknowledged that violence at work had become an intrinsic part of their job and they tend to focus on coping mechanisms. The nurses identified six overlapping groups of perpetrators and described their approach to dealing with these perpetrators. The results highlighted additional factors that impact on the occurrence and management of violence, such as the presence of security, wait times, and the triage system. Based on the focus groups with Emergency Department nurses we conclude that violence at work is an everyday danger for Emergency Department nurses, who feel vulnerable and recognise that it is not within their power to solve this issue given the societal component. Our conclusion is that attention needs to shift from equipping workers with tools to manage violence to the perpetrator and the development of interventions to reduce violence from targeted perpetrator groups.

Background: Workplace violence by patients and bystanders against health care workers, is a major problem, for workers, organizations, patients, and society. It is estimated to affect up to 95% of health care workers. Emergency health care workers experience very high levels of workplace violence, with one study finding that paramedics had nearly triple the odds of experiencing physical and verbal violence. Many interventions have been developed, ranging from zero-tolerance approaches to engaging with the violent perpetrator. Unfortunately, as a recent Cochrane review showed, there is no evidence that any of these interventions work in reducing or minimizing violence. To design better interventions to prevent and minimize workplace violence, more information is needed on those strategies emergency health care workers currently use to prevent or minimize violence. The objective of the study was to identify and discuss strategies used by prehospital emergency health care workers, in response to violence and aggression from patients and bystanders. Mapping the strategies used and their perceived usefulness will inform the development of tailored interventions to reduce the risk of serious harm to health care workers. In this study the following research questions were addressed: (1) What strategies do prehospital emergency health care workers utilize against workplace violence from patients or bystanders? (2) What is their experience with these strategies? Methods: Five focus groups with paramedics and dispatchers were held at different urban and rural locations in Canada. The focus group responses were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: It became apparent that emergency healthcare workers use a variety of strategies when dealing with violent patients or bystanders. Most strategies, other than generic de-escalation techniques, reflect a reliance on the systems the workers work with and within. Conclusion: The study results support the move away from focusing on the individual worker, who is the victim, to a systems-based approach to help reduce and minimize violence against health care workers. For this to be effective, system-based strategies need to be implemented and supported in healthcare organizations and legitimized through professional bodies, unions, public policies, and regulations.