Social Workers in Iceland in the Pandemic: Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Burnout

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to find out how the position is regarding various factors related to social workers in Iceland following the pandemic. A questionnaire was send to all social workers registered in the social worker association in Iceland. The response rate was 46%. The results showed that most of them worked in the social services or 60%, and most of them used empowerment and solution-focused approach as their theoretical approach. Most of the social workers were satisfied with the management, social environment, content of their work, work condition, and salaries. Nearly 90% of the social workers thought that the stress was high, and nearly 80% of them were experiencing one or more stress symptoms or six on the average. The most common stress symptoms were lack of energy, worries, and sleep difficulties. Child protection workers were experiencing the highest number of stress symptoms. One fifth of social workers had experienced burnout in the past. The higher the employment ratio, the more likely a social worker was to have experienced burnout. Nearly a third of the participants thought that they would change jobs in the near future.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to find out the position of social workers in Iceland regarding various factors following both the economic collapse about a decade ago and the pandemic, which is still ongoing when this is written. Social work is a stressful job, and these two major episodes are likely to have influenced and increased stress among the inhabitants as well as those who serve them, including social workers. Work-related stress can have devastating effects on physical and mental health, as well as on the performance of the employees [1]. Stress can be defined as triggers that can lead to psychological disorders, such as anxiety disorder, if coping skills are not used to deal with such triggers [2]. Stress can be caused by the following work-related factors: (1) work load [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] (such as the number of cases, the complexity of each case, and paperwork) [8], administration [5] such as limited management support [4, 8], lack of clear information about how to carry out the job [9], lack of understanding of the role as social workers, lack of reflective supervision [4], insensitive remarks [10] or blaming [4] low support from coworkers [8] (possibly because they are under a lot of stress), and (4) difficult working conditions, such as hotdesking [8], difficulties getting a parking space or having to share an office with others. Stress can also be caused by factors in personal life, such as personal trauma or difficulties in relationships with significant others [11]. One study showed that [12] family stress if associated with social stress predicted emotional exhaustion, as well as economic stress.

If the stress gets overwhelming, it can lead to physical symptoms, such as sleep deprivation, fatigue, exhaustion, negative emotions, and memory difficulties [3], absence from work [4], and even burnout [9]. Pessimism that involves negative expectations, denial, emotional distress, and disengagement can be individual characteristics in the face of stress [13]. Increased stress can lead to burnout. Burnout can be defined as a syndrome involving emotional depletion, which reduces the sense of accomplishment [14]. Symptoms of burnout include but may not be limited to anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, memory impairment, back and neck pain [15]. Engendered work-related stress [16] and burnout [17] are strong predictors of turnover intensions and low job satisfaction [18, 19]. Work-related ethical stress diminishes job satisfaction as well [4, 16], increases the likelihood of burnout [10], and increases the likelihood of leaving the job [16]. In addition, improper words or actions by leaders reduce trust and are likely to lead to the intention to leave the job [17]. A finding by Jia and Fu [20] showed on the other hand that support at work promoted job satisfaction and eased burnout, when social workers are faced with conflict with work and family responsibilities.

Social workers experience a lot of stress on their jobs, since their jobs are demanding [10, 21, 22]. Without sufficient resources, they tend to manage difficult situations [10, 12, 23, 24], usually receiving low salaries [12, 23]. This is especially the case in the area of child protection and in psychiatric care [24]. A case load that is not too big, supervision, and autonomy are among factors that are likely to support coping strategies and increase job satisfaction. Other variables predict less stress symptoms, such as a good supervision relationship and low personal anxiety. Supervision has been found to be an inverse predictor of stress-related symptoms [25], as well as supportive administration [26] and the practice of mediation [26, 27]. In addition, empowerment tends to reduce the level of burnout [28].

Studies regarding the protective influence of good salaries have been inconclusive. A study conducted by Alsabti [12] did not show a relation between salaries and burnout. However, studies by Quinn et al. [25] and O’Donnell [16] did show that higher income predicted less stress symptoms. Furthermore, it seems clear that the profession might lose good professionals since the salaries tend to be lower than in most other professions and those who work in the profession might not be putting enough effort into it because of low salaries [29].

The COVID-19 pandemic influenced how social workers were able to do their job. Social work as a profession was already facing a lot of stress before the pandemic, which seemed to have increased in the pandemic with more difficult problems their clients were experiencing [30]. Studies have shown a greater need for emotional support for social workers during the pandemic because of a much higher ratio of burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder compared with time before the pandemic [31], as well as higher ratio of anxiety [32]. Organizational support has been shown to be important in reducing work-related stress symptoms [33]. However, another study showed that social workers rated their well-being and quality of working better during the pandemic than before the pandemic, since they received more work support during the pandemic [34]. Because of social distancing requirements, social workers have come up with innovative ways of supporting their clients without being able to meet them face to face, such as through the internet and phone [12, 35]. But the situation of the pandemic has also put them in the position of working more at home, along with taking care of other family members, such as their children or older adults, which might increase stress [32].

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding about various different things regarding social workers in Iceland. First, they were asked about what type of job they were doing and in what field, the theories they base their work, and their experience of the availability of interventions for their clients. Second, they were asked about job satisfaction regarding the content of the work itself, management, social environment, work conditions, and salaries. Third, the social workers were asked about stress and burnout symptoms. Fourth, they were asked if they had received supervision and from whom and how likely they are to find another job in the near future. Fifth, how much they had worked at home before the pandemic and while the pandemic was ongoing and how much they would prefer to work at home following the pandemic. Few background variables were collected as well, such as age, gender, marital status, number of children in the household, type of housing, and employment age. In addition to describing the sample according to the above characteristics, the following research questions were asked: (1) What are the characteristics of the typical social worker? (2) How much job satisfaction do social workers experience? (3) What type of stress symptoms do the social workers experience? (4) How many social workers have experienced a burnout and how many have the intention to leave their job? (5) Has the number of days working at home increased during the epidemic, and do social workers want to work partly at home following the epidemic?

In addition, the following hypotheses were suggested: (1) the salaries are better in the capital city area than in the country side, (2) older social workers are more likely to experience burnout than younger social workers, (3) the higher the work ratio, the more likely the social workers are to have experienced burnout, (4) social workers that work in child protection are more likely to have more stress symptoms and to have experienced burnout, (5) social workers who have attended supervision during the last year have fewer stress symptoms than social workers who have not attended supervision during the last year, (6) the more stress symptoms the social workers have, the more likely they are to intend to find another job, (7) more male social workers are working as directors than female social workers, (8) social workers working in the capital city area experience more stress symptoms than social workers working in rural areas. Finally, (9) the following factors were believed to increase stress symptoms; single, with children, renting apartment, working in child protection, low salaries, low employment age, working in the area of child protection, and low job satisfaction regarding working condition, social environment, and administration.

2. Method

This study was based on a quantitative research method since such a method can allow the researcher to generalize the results to the wider population, in this case social workers in Iceland [36]. A questionnaire with various questions regarding their background and their work environment was used.

2.1 Participants

There were 277 social workers that answered the questionnaire. The questionnaire was send to all registered social workers in the social workers’ association in Iceland. The invitation to participate in this study was send by an e-mail to 596 registered social workers. However, only 555 of them were registered as working at that time. Thus, the ratio of respondents was 49.9% if those who were registered as working are seen as the population. However, it might be possible that some social workers who were not working have responded. If social workers who were not working are included as well, the response rate was 46.5%. Most of the registered social workers in the social workers’ association were women, only 30 men were registered at the end of the year of 2021.

The participants were in the age range of 26–78 years old. Most participants were women, there were 264 women (95.3%) who participated in this study, 11 men (4%) and two individuals that defined their gender as other (0.7%) as can be seen in the Table 1 below. Few individuals did not list their gender. The average age of the participants was 44.7, for the women it was 44.5, and the average age of the men was 48.5. Most of the participants were married (57%) or cohabiting (19.5%), and few had two-home relationships (1.4%). Few were divorced (7.6%), were single (9.4%), or had lost their partner (2.2%). Nearly all participants owned their home or 89.2%. Few were renting an apartment (7.6%) on the open market, and fewer were renting from a nonprofit organization or 2.2%. One to five children at various ages were living in each household. The average number of children (no age limit) living in each household was 2.6. Thus, the typical social worker was a woman in the age range of 31–40 years, was married, had two children, and lived in her own apartment or house.

Age	Women	Men	Other
26–30	18	0	0
31–40	93	3	0
41–50	81	3	0
51–60	48	2	1
61–70	18	3	0
71 or older	3	0	0
Information about age not disclosed	4	0	1
Total	264	11	2

Table 1.

Age and gender of the social workers in Iceland.

2.2 Measures

The questionnaire used in this study included questions that had been developed by the author of this study. The questions included few main topics; (1) practical questions regarding their job, such as area of expertise, employment ratio, salaries, and job satisfaction; (2) questions regarding their clients and their work with their clients, such as reasons for interventions and what theories/ideology they based their work on. Also, if they thought that relevant interventions were available for their clients, (3) questions regarding stress and burnout symptoms as well as if they had received supervision and (4) questions regarding COVID-19 and work at home. Finally, there were questions about background variables at the end of the questionnaire, including questions about their age, gender, marital status, number of children, and housing.

2.3 Procedure

The participants were contacted through the social workers’ association in Iceland, which had a total of 596 registered social workers when the study was conducted, thereof 555 registered as working (43 were not working). The purpose was to get responses from all social workers in Iceland, since it is likely that most social workers in the country are registered in the social workers’ association. Thus, the questionnaire was send to as close to the whole population of social workers as is possible, not only to a sample [36]. All social workers registered at the social workers’ association received an e-mail inviting them to participate, with a short and concise text describing the purpose of the study. If they choose to participate, they clicked on a link to a website, where they could access the study in Survey Monkey. The first e-mail invitation was sent in the beginning of February 2022 and followed by two reminders later in that same month. It took the participants on the average 7 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.

2.4 Data processing and ethical considerations

The data were processed using excel and SPSS. No questions were included in the questionnaire that could be traced to individual social workers. However, since Iceland is a small country, with relatively few number of social workers, it might had been possible to trace information to particular social workers, by looking at more than one variables, which might have influenced the participant ratio in this study. However, in the introduction text, social workers were assured that the data would be analyzed in such a way that they would be protected from being known in the results. Thus, the data were analyzed in such a way that it was not possible to trace the data to certain individuals.

3. Results

As noted in the method chapter, the majority of the participants, 95% were women, the mean age was 44.7 years. Most participants were married or cohabiting (76.5%), most were living in their own home (89%), and the average number of children living in the household was 2.6.

The participants had worked as social workers from few months for up to 50 years. On the average their work experience was 13 years. The majority of the participants, 76% worked in the capital city area. A small number of participants worked in the Nordic part of the country (7%), in the south part of the country (6%), and in the area near the international airport (Suðurnes) (5%). Even fewer worked in other parts of the country, 3% in the western part, 1% in the Westfjords, 0.7% in the Eastern part of the country, and 0.3% in the Eastfjords. Eight participants noted “other” as work area. Most social workers, 69% were working in a 100% position. However, 14% were working 49–99% and 14% were working from 101 to 130%. Few were not working at the time they participated in this study. The average salaries that most social workers were receiving for a 100% position was 701–800 thousands Icelandic krona or between 5.016 and 5.724 euro, 26% of social workers were receiving those salaries before taxes. Interestingly, six social workers (2%) were receiving under 500.000 ISK or under 3.577 euro for 100% position, and 8.3% were receiving more than 1.000.000 ISK or over 7.155 euors. There was not a significant difference between salaries among social workers in the capital city area on the one hand and in other parts of the country on the other hand (t = 0.690, df = 245, p = 0.5) when a middle point was used to mark each category.

The social workers worked in various settings. However, not surprisingly, over half of them, 60% were working in the social services, and most of the social workers that were working in social services were working in the area of child protection as can be seen in Table 2. Most of the social workers worked as a social worker/case worker/program manager (66%). Few worked in counseling/therapy (14%) or as directors (12%). Very few were teaching and/or doing research 1%. More men worked as directors (27%) than women (12%). However, the difference was not significant, Chi-square = 2.351 (df = 1, p = 0.142).

Work settings	N	Ratio
Social services; child protection	64	23.1%
Social services; financial aid	15	5.4%
Social services; rented social housing	2	0.7%
Social services; disability serv.	13	4.7%
Social services; social counseling	37	13.4%
Social services; other	33	11.9%
Total social services	164	59.2%
Healthcare services; physical illnesses	10	3.6%
Healthcare services; psychiatric problems/drug abuse	18	6.5%
Total healthcare services	28	10.1%
Older adults services, not social services	3	1.1%
Disability services; not social services	5	1.8%
Services for children; not social services or private practice	6	2.2%
School social work	8	2.9%
The third sector – NGOs	11	4%
Other institutions	19	6.9%
Private practice	8	2.9%
Other	23	8.3%
Missing information	2	0.7%
Total	277	100%

Table 2.

Work settings.

The participants were asked on what theory or ideology they based their work. They could mark as many as they liked. Most social workers were using empowerment in their work with their clients, 79%, followed by the solution focused perspective (66%). The theories that several social workers were using were narrative therapy (27%), the life cycle perspective (27%), cognitive behavioral perspective (28%), behaviorism (26%), and humanism (25%). Other theories that the social workers were using in their work with their clients can be seen in Table 3. The participants were able to select “other” and mention theories. Examples of other theories mentioned by participants were attachment (2%), harm reduction (1%), and independent life empowerment perspective with people with disabilities (1%). Other theories/ideology/models were mentioned by one or two participants under “other.”

Theory/ideology/model	Number	Ratio
Empowerment	219	79%
Solution-focused therapy	183	66%
Cognitive behavioral therapy	77	28%
Life cycle perspective	76	27%
Narrative therapy	74	27%
Behaviorism	71	26%
Humanism	69	25%
Bowen	58	21%
Emotional focused therapy	54	19%
Ecological models	46	17%
Gestalt	40	14%
Psychoanalysis	25	9%
Feminism	19	7%
Radical social work	16	6%
Structural family therapy	13	5%
Strategic family therapy	6	2%
Do not base my work on theories	18	6%
Does not apply	20	7%
Other	26	9%

Table 3.

Theories/ideology in work with clients.

The participants were asked about the main reasons for interventions with their clients. Most of the social workers, 70% mentioned “various kinds of social problems,” followed by psychiatric problems (65%) and alcohol or drug abuse problem (53%). A considerable number of social workers mentioned financial problems (44%), child abuse, neglect or risk behavior of children (42%), physical health problems (40%), and specific problems related to children, such as ADHD, autism spectrum, or behavior problems (40%). Fewer mentioned disability (27%) and older adults (15%). Seventeen percent marked “other” and 5% marked “does not apply.” There were few reasons mentioned by four or five participants each under “other.” Those were trauma, lack of housing, parental- and family problems, communication problems, and abuse. Other reasons were mentioned by one or two participants and included cultural difference and problems regarding custody or visitations with parents following a divorce or separation. The participants were asked about how they perceived the availability of interventions for their clients. The largest part of the social workers or third of them thought that the relevant interventions existed, but that they could be better, they were difficult to receive or that their clients had to wait for too long for those interventions (33%). A similar proportion thought that the relevant intervention did exist, but that it was difficult to receive or that there was too long wait for the clients (20%) on the one hand, and on the other hand, 18% thought that relevant interventions were lacking for their clients. In addition, 15% though that relevant interventions did exist, but they could be improved (Table 4).

The social workers’ perspective on availability and quality of relevant interventions for their clients	N	Ratio
Relevant interventions exist	20	7%
Relevant interventions exist but could be improved	42	15%
Relevant interventions exist, but difficult to enter or too long waiting list	55	20%
Relevant interventions exist, could be improved and it difficult to enter or too long waiting list	91	33%
Relevant interventions are lacking	51	18%
Does not apply	11	4%
Other	6	2%

Table 4.

The availability and quality of relevant interventions for clients.

As can be seen in Figure 1, most of the social workers were rather satisfied with the management at their workplace or a total of 45%. Only 15% were very dissatisfied with the management.

Figure 1.

Satisfaction with management.

As can be seen in Figure 2, most social workers were rather or very satisfied with the social environment at their workplace (84%). Most social workers, 44% were rather satisfied with their work condition as well (Figure 3). A rather small ratio, 16% was rather unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the work conditions.

Figure 2.

Satisfaction with social environment.

Figure 3.

Satisfaction with work conditions.

Most social workers, 92% were very satisfied or rather satisfied with the work itself, the content of the work. Only 2% were rather or very unsatisfied with the content of their work (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Satisfaction with the content of the work.

And finally, nearly half of the social workers 48% were rather satisfied with their salaries. However, a considerable number of social workers, 23% were rather or very dissatisfied with their salaries. Only 9% were very satisfied with their salaries (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Satisfaction with salaries.

When the job satisfaction variables were combined into one variable, there was a significant difference regarding the role of the social workers. Social workers in all roles had a similarly high job satisfaction, except social workers who were teaching and/or doing research. Those social workers were significantly less satisfied than social workers who were working as directors, social workers/project managers, or those who were doing counseling/therapy, F = 2.849 (df = 4), p < 0.05. The participants were asked how much stress they perceived in their job on a five-point Likert scale. Most of them thought that the stress was very much (48%) or rather much (39%). Thirteen percent thought that it was not too much and not too little, only two thought it was rather little, and nobody thought it was too little.

The participants had experienced various kinds of stress symptoms (Table 5). The most common were lack of energy, worries, sleep difficulties, irritation, and work anxiety. The least common symptom the participants marked was arrogance toward clients. As can be seen in the table, a rather high ratio of the social workers were experiencing health-related symptoms and/or psychosomatic symptoms such as discomfort in head or stomach. Only 12% noted that they had not experienced any work-related stress or burnout symptoms at all. Stepwise regression was used to see if (1) marital status (single vs. cohabiting or married), (2) number of children living in the household, (3) housing (renting on the general market vs. other), (4) work area (child protection vs. other), (5) salaries, (6) years of experience, (7) job satisfaction regarding social environment, (8) job satisfaction regarding leadership, and (9) job satisfaction regarding work environment influenced number of stress symptoms. Only four of those variables significantly influenced number of stress symptoms; (1) job satisfaction regarding social environment, unstandardized beta = −1.328, standardized beta = −0.230, t = −3.401 (df = 255), p < 0.01. (2) social workers who worked in the area of child protection had significantly more stress symptoms, unstandardized beta = −2.520, standardized beta = −0.200, t = −3.409 (df = 254), p < 0.01, (3) job satisfaction regarding leadership, unstandardized beta = −1.080 standardized beta = −0.215, t = −3.078 (df = 253), p < 0.01, and (4) job satisfaction regarding work environment, unstandardized beta = −0.082, standardized beta = −0.145, t = −2.389 (df = 252), p < 0.05. Child protection workers were experiencing the highest number of stress symptoms, 8.45 on the average compared with 5.94 among social workers who were working in other areas, t = 3.347 (df = 275), p < 0.001. There was not a significant difference in number of stress symptoms among social workers working in the capital city area compared with social workers working in rural areas, t = 0.686 (df = 262), p = 0.495. The higher number of stress symptoms the social workers were experiencing, the more likely they were to want to get another job in the near future. Beta = 0.061, standardized beta = 0.277, t = 4.718 (df = 268), p < 0.001.

Stress symptoms	N	Ratio
Less energy/lack of energy	167	59%
Worries	160	58%
Sleep difficulties	126	45%
A feeling of emptiness	124	45%
Irritation	123	44%
Work anxiety	104	38%
A feeling bad/sadness	92	33%
A lack of optimism and interest	82	30%
Discomfort in head	79	29%
A social isolation, self-imposed	75	27%
Difficulties prioritizing	64	23%
Changes in diet	60	22%
Doing more mistakes than before	57	21%
Difficulties in giving emotionally	57	21%
Cognitive flatness	56	20%
Disturbance in thinking	56	20%
Discomfort in stomach	55	20%
Speak faster	47	17%
Dizziness	45	16%
A feeling of anger	43	16%
Walk faster	30	11%
Quarrel and distancing with colleagues and/or director	22	8%
Difficulties finding one’s way	18	6%
A significant incapacity at work	13	5%
An arrogance toward clients	5	2%
Have not experienced any stress or burnout symptoms	34	12%
Other	12	4%

Table 5.

Stress symptoms.

Moreover, 62 social workers (22%) had been from work previously because of a burnout. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of age with burnout in the past. Age did not seem to affect burnout. Standardized beta = − 0.17 (df = 272, p = 0.8). However, the higher the employment ratio was, the more likely the social workers were to have experienced burnout. Standardized beta = 0.128 (df = 269, p = 0.035). Child protection workers (27%) and social workers working in psychiatric health care (11%) were not more likely to have experienced burnout compared with social workers in general (22%), Chi-square = 1972 (df = 2, p = 0.373).

When asked about how likely the social workers were to change jobs in the next future, nearly a third (31%) thought that it was very unlikely that they would change jobs, and additional 26% thought rather unlikely that they would change jobs. One-quarter (24%) thought that there were neither more likely nor less likely that they would change jobs. However, 10% thought it was rather likely, and 6% that it was very likely that they would change jobs. Thus totally, quarter of the social workers thought that it was rather likely or very likely that they would change jobs in the near future.

Supervision is important for social workers, especially when they are faced with stress and are experiencing stress and even burnout symptoms. They were asked if they had received supervision, both in general and the last year. They were also asked about the education background of the supervisor. Table 6 shows the educational background of the professionals that the social workers had received supervision from. Note that each social worker could mark more than one educational background, since some of them might have had received supervision from more than one professional during the past. Interestingly, more social workers had received supervision from psychologists (61%) than from social workers (51%). Few had received supervision from professionals with other educational background as can be seen in Table 6. A considerable part of the social workers (57%) had received supervision during the year prior to participating in this study, and nearly two-thirds (63%) had received group supervision sometime in the past. Social workers who had received supervision at any time in the past were more likely to have experienced burnout in the past. Chi-square = 4.471 (df = 1, p = 0.034). However, social workers who had experienced burnout in the past might have been more likely to have experienced more stress in their job prior to the burnout. Social workers who had been in supervision during the last year had significantly fewer stress symptoms compared with social workers who had not been receiving supervision during the last year before they participated in the study, t = 3.465 (df = 272), p < 0.001.

Educational background of the supervisor	N	Ratio
Social worker	141	51%
Psychologist	168	61%
Psychiatrist	10	4%
Psychiatric nurse	25	9%
Priest/deacon	11	4%
Other	17	6%
Does not apply	24	9%

Table 6.

Supervision received.

The participants were asked about their work conditions during the pandemic, if they had worked at home completely or in part and if they preferred to work not at all, in part, or completely at home. The mean number of days that the social workers worked at home during the week before the epidemic was 0.31, but 1.83 during the epidemic. The difference was significant (t = 13.3, df = 204, p > 0,001). Most of the social workers, 75% wanted to be able to work partly at home following the epidemic. However, a quarter (25%) did not want to work at home at all following the pandemic. Only two social workers wanted to work completely at home following the pandemic.

4. Discussion

This study sheds light on social workers in Iceland following the COVID-19 epidemic in Iceland regarding numerous factors, mainly regarding their professional experience, but also few main factors regarding their personal life.

4.1 Summary of major results and connection with related literature

Most social workers were females, the mean age was 45 years, three-fourth were married or cohabiting, most of them living in their own home, and the average number of children living in their home (at all ages) was 2.6. The participants had work experience from few months up to 50 years, the average work experience was 13 years. Three-fourth of the social workers worked in the capital city area. The highest number of social workers, 26%, were receiving between 5.016 and 5.724 euro in monthly salaries, even though the range of salaries was from under 3.577 euro and over 7.155 euro for 100% position. There was not a significant difference between the salaries social workers were receiving in urban or rural areas. Most of the social workers were working in 100% position or 69%. However, some were working in positions from 49–99%, and others were working up to 130%.

The social workers worked in different areas and in various settings. Nearly two-thirds of them (60%) worked in the social services, and most of those social workers worked in the area of child protection. Others worked in the healthcare services with physically ill or mentally ill clients, in services for older adults, special services for children, in schools, in the third sector, in other institutions, or in private practice. Most of the social workers were working as social workers, case workers, or program managers (66%), few as directors, few were providing counseling or therapy, and very few were teaching and/or conducting research. More men than women were in the role of a director. However, the difference was not significant.

The majority of the social workers were using empowerment (79%) as a theoretical background and solution-focused approach (66%). Many or from 21% and up to 27% were using cognitive behavioral approach, life cycle perspective, narrative approach, behaviorism, humanism, and Bowen. Fewer marked that they were using other approaches. Regarding reasons for interventions with their clients, the most common reason marked was “various kinds of problems” (70%), followed by psychiatric problems (65%) and alcohol or drug abuse problems (53%). When asked about how the social workers perceived the availability and quality of interventions for their clients, the largest part or one-third of them thought that the relevant intervention did exist, but that they could be better, they were difficult to receive, or there was a long wait for the interventions.

The social workers were asked about job satisfaction concerning five different factors. Most of them were rather or very satisfied with the management, social environment, the work condition, content of the work, and the salaries. However, only 9% were very satisfied with their salaries, and a little lower proportion was very unsatisfied with their salaries. Interestingly, the social workers who were teaching or doing research were less satisfied in their job compared with other social workers.

Nearly half of the social workers (48%) thought that the stress was very much in their job or rather much (39%). Thus, the majority of them or nearly 90% seemed to be working in a stressful environment. This ratio is considerable higher than results of another study showed among healthcare workers, were the ratio experiencing stress in their workplace was 70% [37]. Not surprisingly most of the social workers in this study, presented in this paper, had experienced stress symptoms (88%). The most common stress symptoms were less energy/lack of energy (59%), worries (58%), sleep difficulties (45%) a feeling of emptiness (45%), and irritation (44%). This is in part similar to the results of another study, where the most frequent stress symptoms were thinking about clients when not intending to 61%, being easily annoyed 42%, having trouble sleeping 40%, having trouble concentrating 39%, wanting to avoid working with some clients 38%, and feeling emotionally numb 36% [25]. Only 12% thought that they had not experienced any stress symptoms. The higher the number of stress symptoms, the more likely they were to be thinking of leaving their job in the near future. Sixteen percent thought it was rather or very likely that they would leave their job in the near future, which is similar to a survey conducted in China [26], but much less than found in other studies conducted in the United Kingdom [4, 10].

Four variables were predictive of stress symptoms. Child protection workers experience higher number of stress symptoms than social workers working in different areas and lower job satisfaction regarding social environment, leadership, and work condition predicted more stress symptoms. Child protection workers were experiencing the highest number of stress symptoms or on the average 8.5 compared with 5.9 among other social workers. There was not a significant difference in the mean number of stress symptoms among social workers working in urban area compared with rural areas. No connection was found between salaries and stress symptoms, as noted before, the results of former studies have been inconclusive regarding that [12, 16, 25].

A considerable number of social workers (22%) had been away from work previously because of a burnout, which is a similar ratio as in other studies [18, 32]. Age did not seem to be related to burnout. The higher the employment ratio was, the more likely the social workers were to have experienced burnout. Interestingly, child protection workers and social workers working in the psychiatric health care were not more likely to have experienced burnout than other social workers [24].

Supervision has been believed to be important in order to reduce stress symptoms and reduce the likelihood of burnout. The overwhelming majority of social workers (89.5%) had received individual supervision sometime in the past. The ratio is similar to the results of an older Icelandic study [38], and 63% had received group supervision sometime in the past. More than half of the social workers had received individual supervision during the last year prior to participating in this study. Nearly two-thirds of the social workers had been in supervision by a psychologist and 51% by a social worker. Much fewer social workers had been in supervision by other professionals. In the older study mentioned above, third of social workers had received supervision by another social worker, 53% from a social worker and another professional, and 14% from other professionals [38]. Interestingly, the social workers in this study, who had received supervision at any time in the past, were more likely to have experienced burnout. It is likely that they had been experiencing more stress than other social workers prior to the burnout, but that was not tested in this study. However, social workers who had been in supervision during the last year, prior to the study, were experiencing significantly fewer stress symptoms than social workers who had not been in supervision during the last year.

Regarding the pandemic and the issue of working at home, the social workers worked significantly more at home during the pandemic than before the pandemic. Three-quarter of the social workers wanted to be able to work partly at home after the pandemic, fourth of them did not want to work home at all. That ratio is even higher than the ratio of university educated professionals wanting to be able to work partly at home, according to a recent survey conducted in Iceland, where the ratio was 60% [39].

Finally, it might be noted that the participation ratio was little under 50%. Thus, it is not possible to generalize the results [36] to all social workers in Iceland. However, it is likely that nearly half of all social workers in the country participated in this study, since it is believed that nearly all social workers are registered in the social workers’ reunion.

4.2 Practical implications

Social workers tend to work with clients who are likely to have experienced severe difficulties and trauma [24, 40], and the difficulties experienced by both clients and social workers have increased even more during the pandemic [30]. Since nearly 90% of the social workers who participated in this study have experienced stress-related symptoms, and one out of five of them had been away from their job because of burnout, it is important to provide organizational support in order to reduce the likelihood of severe stress symptoms and burnout [20]. Especially since poor working environment, poor social environment, and poor leadership predicted stress symptoms. Such organizational support should provide a decent case load [25] and good working environment. In addition, supportive administration in terms of leadership and social environment is especially important in order to reduce stress [20, 26]. Relevant intervention possibilities are also important to exist, since it can be a great stress for a social worker to have a case without being able to have quick access to relevant interventions, which were lacking in most cases in this study. Finally, it is of vital importance that supportive administration provides social workers with supervision [25, 41]. Supervision should benefit the professional as well as the workplace and should emphasize empowerment, knowledge, and growth [41] as well as self-reflection. Social workers who had been in supervision the previous year before they participated in this study had indeed significantly fewer stress symptoms than other social workers, which is similar to the findings of another study [25].

The various kinds of support discussed here are of even more importance in the area of child protection, since child protection workers were found to experience more stress than social workers working in other areas. It is interesting to note that personal variables, such as number of children in the household, were not predictive of stress symptoms. Thus, even though it can be important for social workers to take good care of their health and meditate [26], it seems that it is of outmost importance for them to experience healthy and good job environment.