Cross-sectional study finds associations between work-related instant messaging and stress among physicians, suggesting key occupational health implications.
Aim To assess the association between WRIMC and perceived stress among physicians through the lens of ‘occupational context’ and psycho-physiological stressors as mediators. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in Albania in January 2025 including a representative sample of 367 physicians (≈ 66% females; overall response rate: ≈90%). A structured 36-item questionnaire included demographic characteristics, WRIMC exposure and related psycho-physiological stressors and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Multivariable-adjusted ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the direct association between WRIMC-related exposures and PSS scores, whereas mediation analysis was used to assess indirect effects using the perceived impact of work on stress level and psycho-physiological stressors as mediators. Results Physicians had moderate-to-high exposure frequencies to work-related phone usage, instant messages and calling, app-based instant messaging, WRIMC beyond work hours, during vacations or after 22:00 o’clock. WRIMC via apps, irritability due to WRIMC interruptions, guilt over not responding to WRIMC and mental fatigue due to WRIMC were identified as ordinal correlates of perceived stress (β = 0.48, β = 0.65, β = 0.33 and β = 0.37, respectively). The perceived impact of work served as a partial mediator (β = 1.07) between WRIMC and PSS scores, though a direct effect of WRIMC on PSS was also observed (β = 2.57). Physicians’ age was a negative covariate in both indirect and direct effects. Conclusions Physicians are highly exposed to WRIMC which may be associated with certain psycho-physiological stressors. The perceived occupational stress context of instant messaging and calling might represent a significant pathway beyond technostress per se, which may be interconnected with or distinct from work-related stress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shpuza et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: