Back

The causal role of low supervisor support in accidental blood exposure among hospital healthcare workers: a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) analysis of the STRIPPS cohort

BUN, R. S.; AIT BOUZIAD, K.; DAOUDA, O. S.; MILIANI, K.; TEMIME, L.; HOCINE, M. N.; ASTAGNEAU, P.

2025-09-19 occupational and environmental health
10.1101/2025.09.18.25336086 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAccidental blood exposures (AEB) are a major occupational hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs), with risk of bloodborne pathogen transmission. While organisational factors are known to influence safety, the specific causal pathways linking management quality to AEB risk remain poorly characterised. ObjectivesTo investigate the causal pathways linking organisational factors, particularly supervisor support, to AEB risk among HCWs through stress and fatigue mediators using Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) analysis. MethodsSecondary analysis of the STRIPPS cohort study including 32 wards across four Paris university hospitals (n=730 HCWs). A DAG was constructed based on a literature review and previously published multivariate analyses to model causal relationships between organisational factors, psychological mediators, and AEB outcomes. ResultsAEB incidence was 4.1 per 100 visits overall, highest in intensive care units (7.1/100). DAG analysis showed that low supervisor support increased AEB risk through both direct and indirect pathways. Literature evidence indicated a protective effect of supervisor support on both stress and fatigue, while these psychological factors are strongly associated with increased AEB risk. Additional organisational factors including irregular work schedules, rotating shifts, and use of external personnel contributed to elevated AEB risk. Individual factors such as work overcommitment and presenteeism further amplified stress and fatigue pathways. The analysis explored multiple converging pathways from organisational and individual factors through psychological mediators to AEB risk. ConclusionsLow supervisor support drives AEB risk through multiple interconnected pathways affecting stress and fatigue. Interventions targeting organisational support and psychological wellbeing could substantially reduce occupational injury risk among HCWs. HighlightsO_LIWhat is already known about this subject? O_LIAccidental blood exposures (AEB) are a major occupational hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs), with significant risks of bloodborne pathogen transmission and psychological distress. C_LIO_LIOrganisational factors, including leadership and safety culture, are known to influence workplace safety, but their specific causal pathways to AEB remain poorly understood. C_LIO_LIStress and fatigue are recognised as mediators between work conditions and safety outcomes, but their roles in AEB have not been systematically modelled using causal methods. C_LI C_LIO_LIWhat are the new findings? O_LIUsing a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) approach, we identified that low supervisor support increases AEB risk through both direct and indirect pathways mediated by stress and fatigue. C_LIO_LIFatigue showed a stronger association with AEB (OR 2.94-4.25) than stress (OR 1.12-1.53), highlighting its critical role in occupational safety. C_LIO_LISickness presenteeism and work overcommitment were identified as key individual-level amplifiers of stress and fatigue, further increasing AEB risk. C_LIO_LIIrregular work schedules and use of interim staff were organisational factors with substantial effects on AEB risk (RR > 3.0). C_LI C_LIO_LIHow might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future? O_LIHealthcare organisations should prioritise supervisor training to improve supportiveness, which could reduce both psychological strain and AEB incidents. C_LIO_LIFatigue risk management systems and scheduling optimisations should be implemented to mitigate the strong effects of irregular shifts and long hours. C_LIO_LIPolicies discouraging presenteeism and promoting mental health support could break the cycle of fatigue and injury among HCWs. C_LI C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.0%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.4%
3
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.0%
5
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
6
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.2%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
12
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
14
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
19
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.8%
23
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
25
American Journal of Infection Control
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%