Ageing International

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 4–19 | Cite as

Job Autonomy of Long-Term Residential Care Assistive Personnel: A Six Country Comparison

  • Frode F. Jacobsen
  • Suzanne Day
  • Katherine Laxer
  • Liz Lloyd
  • Monika Goldmann
  • Marta Szhebehely
  • Jacqueline A. Choiniere
  • Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau


Assistive personnel are the primary caregivers in long term residential care (LTRC) and their job autonomy is a major social determinant of health. Our goal is to explore experiences of assistive personnel in six industrialized countries (Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, England, and the U.S.), and consider innovations in the LTRC setting that might influence their job autonomy. The methodology is based on on-site observations at nursing homes and interviews with assistive personnel and other relevant LTRC staff in selected nursing homes in all six countries. Previously published statistical material from the study on staff characteristics like pay, formal education, unionization, employment-related benefits and extent of part-time work is employed as relevant context for discussing job autonomy. Our results show that assistive personnel are highly supportive of job autonomy though they interpret autonomy differently and report widely varying levels of job autonomy. Those LTRC organizations that have a reputation for encouraging autonomy of assistive personal, report recruiting is far easier even where there is a shortage. In some countries we were told that “resident-centered” (“person-centered”) care and a leveling of the division of labor, understood as more equal and horizontal division of labor, was on the rise and this could affect autonomy. Job autonomy is welcomed by assistive personnel. The wide variation in job autonomy across nursing homes and across countries is surprising. Within nursing homes variation may reflect imperfect or incomplete implementation of autonomy policies, or differential application of policies. The resident-centered philosophy and the leveling of the division of labor could make for greater autonomy for assistive personnel. These workplace innovations are not universal in all countries and they could be more difficult to apply where resources and commitment are lacking. The increasingly frail population of LTRC facilities and the general trend toward growth of specialized medical treatment within LTRC in some of the countries may support an argument for some limitations to job autonomy in assistive personnel. Autonomy is favored by assistive personnel though not all have it. The workplace innovations of resident-centered care and a leveling of the division of labor in LTRC, could make for a greater degree of autonomy for assistive personnel in the future, while increased demand for highly skilled care could work in the other direction.


Assistive care Long term residential care Job autonomy Six countries 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

As there is no person or personal data appearing in the paper, there is no one from whom a permission should be obtained in order to publish personal data.

Ethical Treatment of Experimental Subjects (Animal and Human)

Not relevant as no experiments have been carried out in this study.


  1. Armstrong, P., Armstrong, H., & Scott-Dixon, K. (2008). Critical to care: The invisible women health services. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, P., Banerjee, A., Szebehely, M., Armstrong, H., Daly, T., & Stirling, L. (2009). They deserve better: The long-term care experience in Canada and Scandinivia. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.Google Scholar
  3. Baines, D., & Cunningham, I. (2011). Using comparative perspective rapid ethnography in international case studies: Strengths and challenges. Qualitative Social Work, 12(1), 73–88. doi: 10.1177/1473325011419053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A., Tamara D, Hugh A, Pat A, Stirling L,Szebeheley M. (2008). Out-of-control: Violence against personal support Workers in Long-Term Care.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, C. E. (2014). High-performance workplace practices in nursing homes: An economic perspective. Gerontologist, 54(Suppl 1), S46–S52. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, C. E., Weinberg, D. B., Leutz, W., Dossa, A., Pfefferle, S. G., and Zincavage, R. M. (2008). Nursing assistants' job commitment: Effect of nursing home organizational factors and impact on resident well-being. Gerontologist, 48 Spec No 1, 36-45.Google Scholar
  7. Bongers, P. M., Kremer, A. M., & ter Laak, J. (2002). Are psychosocial factors, risk factors for symptoms and signs of the shoulder, elbow, or hand/wrist?: A review of the epidemiological literature. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41(5), 315–342. doi: 10.1002/ajim.10050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosma, H., Marmot, M. G., Hemingway, H., Nicholson, A. C., Brunner, E., & Stansfeld, S. A. (1997). Low job control and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort) study. BMJ, 314(7080), 558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Career Nursing Assistants. National Network of Career Nursing Assistants. (2009–2014). Retrieved February 22, 2014, from
  10. Colombo, F., Llena-Nozal, A, Mercier, J, Tjadens F. (2011). Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care.Google Scholar
  11. Daly, T., Szebehely, M. (2012). International Journal of Social Welfare, 21 (Unheard voices, unmapped terrain: Care work in long-term residential care for older people in Canada and Sweden), 139–148.Google Scholar
  12. Day, S. (2014) Making it work: A study of the decision-making processes of personal care workers in long-term residential care. Doctoral dissertation. Available at:
  13. DeForge, R., Paula, W. V., Hall, J., & Salmoni, A. (2011). Afraid to care, unable to care: A critical ethnography withing a long-term home. Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsu, H. C., Kung, Y. W., Huang, H. C., Ho, P. Y., Lin, Y. Y., & Chen, W. S. (2007). Work stress among nursing home care attendants in Taiwan: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(5), 736–746. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1992). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Karasek, R., Baker, D., Marxer, F., Ahlbom, A., & Theorell, T. (1981). Job decision latitude, job demands, and cardiovascular disease: A prospective study of Swedish men. American Journal of Public Health, 71(7), 694–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kivimäki, M., & Kawachi, I. (2013). Need for more individual-level meta-analyses in social epidemiology: Example of job strain and coronary heart disease. American Journal of Epidemiology, 177(1), 1–2. doi: 10.1093/aje/kws407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kivimäki, M., Leino-Arjas, P., Luukkonen, R., Riihimäki, H., Vahtera, J., & Kirjonen, J. (2002). Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: Prospective cohort study of industrial employees. BMJ, 325(7369), 857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kokkonen, K. (2013). A Literature Review of Care Home Managers Wellbeing in Designing Wellbeing in Elderly Care Homes (S. R. a. S. V. Anneli Hujala Ed.): Aalto University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kompier, M. A. (2006). New systems of work organization and workers' health. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(6), 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kontos, P., Miller, K. L., & Mitchell, G. J. (2010). Neglecting the importance of the decision making and care regimes of personal support workers: A critique of standardization of care planning through the RAI/MDS. Gerontologist, 50(3), 352–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laxer, K.; Jacobsen, FF.; Lloyd, L; Goldmann, M; Day, S; Choiniere, JA. & Rosenau, PV. (2015). Comparing nursing home assistive personnel in five countries. Ageing International, online publ. doi: 10.1007/s12126-015-9226-2.
  23. Liu, L. F., Liu, W. P., & Wang, J. Y. (2011). Work autonomy of certified nursing assistants in long-term care facilities: Discrepant perceptions between nursing supervisors and certified nursing assistants. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 12(7), 524–534. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lohmann-Haislah, A. (2012). Stress report Germany 2012. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin Dortmund.Google Scholar
  25. Lopez, S. H. (2006). Emotional labor and organized emotional care. Conceptualizing nursing home care work. Work and Occupations, 33(2), 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marmot, M., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2001). Psychosocial and material pathways in the relation between income and health: A response to lynch et al. BMJ, 322(7296), 1233–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marmot, M. G., Smith, G. D., Stansfeld, S., Patel, C., North, F., Head, J., & Feeney, A. (1991). Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. Lancet, 337(8754), 1387–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MOHLTC (2005) The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The regulation of personal support workers the Minister’s question on February 7, 2005 the Honourable George Smitherman, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.
  29. National Health Service (2013) , Retrieved 5 Nov. 2013, NHS Careers in Detail: Healthcare assistants/auxiliary nurses,
  30. Rugulies, R., & Krause, N. (2005). Job strain, iso-strain, and the incidence of low back and neck injuries. A 7.5-year prospective study of San Francisco transit operators. Social Science & Medicine, 61(1), 27–39. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stagnitti, K., Schoo, A., Dunbar, J., & Reid, C. (2006). An exploration of issues of management and intention to stay: Allied health professionals in South West Victoria, Australia. Journal of Allied Health, 35(4), 226–232.Google Scholar
  32. Stansfeld, S., & Candy, B. (2006). Psychosocial work environment and mental health--a meta-analytic review. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(6), 443–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strantz, A., & Sörensdotter, R. (2016). Interpretations of person-centered care: Same rhetoric, different practices? A comparative study of nursing homes in England and Sweden. Journal of Aging Studies, 38, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szebehely, M. (2006). Omsorgsvardag under skiftande organisatoriska villkor – en jämörande studie av den nordiska hemtjänesten. Tidsskrift for arbejdsliv, 8(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  35. The Norwegian Directorate of Health (NDH) (2004). Hvordan holde orden i eget hus. Internkontroll i sosial- og helsetjenesten. Oslo: NDH.Google Scholar
  36. Theorell, T., & Karasek, R. A. (1996). Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. WHO (World Health Organization). (2010). Classifying health workers: Mapping occupations to the international standard classification. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frode F. Jacobsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Suzanne Day
    • 3
  • Katherine Laxer
    • 4
  • Liz Lloyd
    • 5
  • Monika Goldmann
    • 6
  • Marta Szhebehely
    • 7
  • Jacqueline A. Choiniere
    • 8
  • Pauline Vaillancourt Rosenau
    • 9
  1. 1.Center for Care Research - Western Norway and Institute of NursingWestern Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway
  2. 2.VID Specialized UniversityBergenNorway
  3. 3.Women’s Xchange, Women’s College HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of Health at York UniversityTorontoCanada
  5. 5.University of BristolUnited KingdomBristolUK
  6. 6.Social Research CentreTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  7. 7.Department of Social WorkStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  8. 8.Faculty of Health, School of NursingYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  9. 9.Management, Policy, and Community Health DivisionUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Houston - School of Public Health HoustonTexasUSA

Personalised recommendations