Deepening Empirical Understandings of Nurse Work Well-Being: Using Mixed Methods Including Path Analysis to Create Contextualized Outcome Models.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing Pub Date : 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1111/wvn.70005
John W Nelson, Dominika Vrbnjak, Patricia L Thomas, Cathy I Schwartz
{"title":"Deepening Empirical Understandings of Nurse Work Well-Being: Using Mixed Methods Including Path Analysis to Create Contextualized Outcome Models.","authors":"John W Nelson, Dominika Vrbnjak, Patricia L Thomas, Cathy I Schwartz","doi":"10.1111/wvn.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This 2022-2023 study across nine countries builds on a 2019-2021 ten-country study exploring nurse work well-being (WWB) and its associated outcomes. WWB, as assessed using the Profile of Caring (PoC) survey, is conceptualized as a multifactorial construct encompassing caring for self, caring of manager, clarity of role/system, and job satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore relationships between WWB and staff outcomes by evaluating the PoC construct validity within an international nursing population in the post-pandemic context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nursing staff (n = 2546) from 128 facilities participated. Mixed methods, including thematic analysis, descriptive statistics, regression analyses, and path analysis, were employed to develop a WWB outcome model. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, and construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final model had good model fit, explaining 76% of nurse WWB. Feeling rewarded for work well done, total direct effect had a positive relationship with job satisfaction (β = 0.415, p = < 0.001) and a negative effect on intent to leave (β = -0.242, p = 0.003). Job satisfaction total direct effect negatively related to intent to leave (β = -0.584, p = < 0.001). Relationship direction, strength, and significance varied by country. Caring of manager explained one-third of WWB. Job satisfaction subscales explained intent to leave (25.2%). The PoC showed high reliability (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.80), and robust construct validity was confirmed through exploratory factor analysis (KMO = 0.950, factor loadings ≥ 0.40).</p><p><strong>Linking evidence to action: </strong>Conclusions suggest that understanding job satisfaction and intent to leave predictors is complex, requiring complex models to globally and contextually explain nurse WWB outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49355,"journal":{"name":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","volume":"22 2","pages":"e70005"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.70005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This 2022-2023 study across nine countries builds on a 2019-2021 ten-country study exploring nurse work well-being (WWB) and its associated outcomes. WWB, as assessed using the Profile of Caring (PoC) survey, is conceptualized as a multifactorial construct encompassing caring for self, caring of manager, clarity of role/system, and job satisfaction.

Aims: To explore relationships between WWB and staff outcomes by evaluating the PoC construct validity within an international nursing population in the post-pandemic context.

Methods: Nursing staff (n = 2546) from 128 facilities participated. Mixed methods, including thematic analysis, descriptive statistics, regression analyses, and path analysis, were employed to develop a WWB outcome model. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, and construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis.

Results: The final model had good model fit, explaining 76% of nurse WWB. Feeling rewarded for work well done, total direct effect had a positive relationship with job satisfaction (β = 0.415, p = < 0.001) and a negative effect on intent to leave (β = -0.242, p = 0.003). Job satisfaction total direct effect negatively related to intent to leave (β = -0.584, p = < 0.001). Relationship direction, strength, and significance varied by country. Caring of manager explained one-third of WWB. Job satisfaction subscales explained intent to leave (25.2%). The PoC showed high reliability (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.80), and robust construct validity was confirmed through exploratory factor analysis (KMO = 0.950, factor loadings ≥ 0.40).

Linking evidence to action: Conclusions suggest that understanding job satisfaction and intent to leave predictors is complex, requiring complex models to globally and contextually explain nurse WWB outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
深化对护士工作幸福感的实证理解:使用包括路径分析在内的混合方法创建情境化结果模型。
背景:这项横跨9个国家的2022-2023年研究是在2019-2021年探索护士工作幸福感(WWB)及其相关结果的10国研究的基础上进行的。通过“关怀概况”(PoC)调查评估,员工敬业度被定义为一个多因素结构,包括对自我的关怀、对管理者的关怀、角色/系统的清晰度和工作满意度。目的:通过在大流行后的国际护理人群中评估PoC结构效度,探讨工作负荷与工作人员结果之间的关系。方法:来自128家医院的护理人员2546名参与调查。采用主题分析、描述性统计、回归分析和路径分析等混合方法建立WWB结果模型。信度采用Cronbach’s alpha评估,构念效度采用探索性因子分析评估。结果:最终模型拟合良好,可解释76%的护士尿漏。工作表现良好的感觉奖励,总直接效应与工作满意度呈正相关(β = 0.415, p =证据与行动相联系:结论表明,理解工作满意度和离职意图的预测因素是复杂的,需要复杂的模型来全局和情境地解释护士工作满意度的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
11.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is pleased to bring you Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. Now publishing 6 issues per year, this peer-reviewed journal and top information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International, uniquely bridges knowledge and application, taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management, and its link to action in real world settings. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is written especially for: Clinicians Researchers Nurse leaders Managers Administrators Educators Policymakers Worldviews on Evidence­-Based Nursing is a primary source of information for using evidence-based nursing practice to improve patient care by featuring: Knowledge synthesis articles with best practice applications and recommendations for linking evidence to action in real world practice, administra-tive, education and policy settings Original articles and features that present large-scale studies, which challenge and develop the knowledge base about evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare Special features and columns with information geared to readers’ diverse roles: clinical practice, education, research, policy and administration/leadership Commentaries about current evidence-based practice issues and developments A forum that encourages readers to engage in an ongoing dialogue on critical issues and questions in evidence-based nursing Reviews of the latest publications and resources on evidence-based nursing and healthcare News about professional organizations, conferences and other activities around the world related to evidence-based nursing Links to other global evidence-based nursing resources and organizations.
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Implementing a Sleep Care Bundle on Sleep Quality and Delirium Among Critically Ill Patients: A Quasi-Experimental Study. The Current Status, Limitations, and Future Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Nursing: A Comprehensive Analysis Based on DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Co-Pilot. Evidence-Based Educational Initiative for Nurses in an Epilepsy Monitoring Unit. Research Capacity and Culture on Nurses' Evidence-Based Practice Implementation. Levels of Moral Distress, Secondary Traumatic Stress, General Health, and Empathy Among Nursing Staff in Eight Public Hospitals in Greece: A Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1