Work stress and professional quality of life in disability support workers: The mediating role of psychological flexibility

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographics (N = 251).

Demographic	N	Percentage (%)
Sex
Female	191	76.1
Male	60	23.9
Age
18–25 years	23	9.2
26–35 years	74	29.5
36–45 years	47	18.7
46–55 years	69	27.5
56 years and older	38	15.1
Ethnicity
Australian, Other^a	15	6.0
Australian, European	200	79.7
Australian, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander	17	6.8
Non-Australian	19	7.6
Highest level of education
Did not finish high school	11	4.4
Completed year 12	17	6.8
Certificate	76	30.3
Diploma	67	26.7
Bachelor degree	57	22.7
Postgraduate degree	23	9.2
Occupation
Support worker	200	79.7
Manager or administrator	51	20.3
Primary employment setting
Other^b	29	11.6
Supported accommodation	118	47
Respite	17	6.8
Day service program	30	12
Community access^c	36	14.3
Community support^d	21	8.4
Employment type
Permanent full-time	90	35.9
Permanent part-time	100	39.8
Casual	54	21.5
Contract	7	2.8
Length of current employment
Less than 1 year	50	19.9
2–5 years	116	46.2
6–10 years	54	21.5
More than 10 years	31	12.4

^a Australian, Other includes New Zealand Māori, Indonesian, Indian, Fijian, South African, African, El Salvadoran, Hispanic, and Filipino.

^b Other primary employment setting includes employment, administration, forensic disability service, school, social enterprise, assessment, government services, community nursing, individualised support, and across multiple settings.

^c Community access includes learning and life skills development.

^d Community support includes intervention, counselling, and case management.

Table 2. Correlations (N = 251).

		Work stress	Psychological flexibility
Burnout	Pearson correlation	.57*	−.56*
	Sig. 2-tailed	.000	.000
	N	251	251
Compassion fatigue	Pearson correlation	.49*	−.57*
	Sig. 2-tailed	.000	.000
	N	251	251
Compassion satisfaction	Spearman’s rho	−.28*	.36*
	Sig. 2-tailed	.000	.000
	N	251	251
Psychological flexibility	Pearson correlation	−.36*
	Sig. 2-tailed	.000
	N	251

*p < .01 level (two-tailed).

Figure 1. Mediation model for the influence of psychological flexibility on perceived work stress and burnout.

Table 3. Mediation model for perceived work stress and burnout.

Predictor		Outcome
		M (Psychological flexibility)				Y (Burnout)
		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p
X (Work stress)	a	−.15	.02	.000	c^1	.11	.01	.000
		[−.19, −.10]				[.09, .14]
M (Psychological flexibility)		–	–	–	b	−.27	.03	.000
						[−.33, −.20]
Constant	i1	62.13	2.05	.000	i2	27.65	2.24	.000
		[58.10, 66.17]				[23.23, 32.06]
		R^2 = .13			R^2 = .47
		F = (1, 249) = 36.94, p = .000			F = (2, 248) = 111.33, p = .000

Figure 2. Mediation model for the proposed influence of psychological flexibility on work stress and compassion fatigue.

Table 4. Mediation model for perceived work stress and compassion fatigue.

Predictor		Outcome
		M (Psychological flexibility)				Y (Compassion fatigue)
		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p
X (Work stress)	a	−.15	.02	.000	c^1	.09	.01	.000
		[−.19, −.10]				[.06, .12]
M (Psychological flexibility)		–	–	–	B	−.29	.03	.000
						[−.36, −.22]
Constant	i1	62.13	2.05	.000	i2	28.03	2.37	.000
		[58.09, 66.17]				[23.38, 32.69]
		R^2 = .13			R^2 = .42
		F = (1, 249) = 36.94, p = .000			F = (2, 248) = 89.13, p = .000

Figure 3. Mediation model for the proposed influence of psychological flexibility on work stress and compassion satisfaction.

Table 5. Mediation model for perceived work stress and compassion satisfaction.

Predictor		Outcome
		M (Psychological flexibility)				Y (Compassion satisfaction)
		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p
X (Work stress)	a	−.15	.02	.000	c^1	−.05	.02	.005
		[−.19, −.10]				[−.09, −.02]
M (Psychological flexibility)		–	–	–	B	.20	.05	.000
						[.11, .29]
Constant	i1	62.13	2.05	.000	i2	34.26	3.28	.000
		[58.09, 66.17]				[27.79, 40.73]
		R^2 = .13			R^2 = .14
		F = (1, 249) = 36.94, p = .000			F = (2, 248) = 20.33, p = .000