| Literature DB >> 18976478 |
Trevor Murrells1, Sarah Robinson, Peter Griffiths.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The theory of planned behaviour states that attitudinal variables (e.g. job satisfaction) only have an indirect effect on retention whereas intentions have a direct effect. This study uses secondary data from a longitudinal cohort of newly qualified nurses to test for the direct and indirect effects of job satisfaction (client care, staffing, development, relationships, education, work-life interface, resources, pay) and intentions to nurse on working as a nurse during the 3 years after qualification.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18976478 PMCID: PMC2600630 DOI: 10.1186/1478-4491-6-22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Resour Health ISSN: 1478-4491
Measurement model
| Proportion of time I spend/spent providing direct client care ('hands on' care) | |
| Opportunities to provide good quality care | |
| Proportion of time I spend/spent on paperwork | |
| Ratio of qualified to unqualified staff on days | |
| Number of staff usually on days | |
| Opportunity to reflect on my practice with someone of a higher grade/position | |
| Opportunity to reflect on practice with a group of colleagues | |
| Opportunity to reflect on my own practice on my own while at work | |
| Frequency of discussions about developing my career | |
| Constructive feedback on my work from staff of a higher grade/position | |
| Emotional support from my immediate line manager | |
| Quality of working relationships with colleagues | |
| Emotional support from nurses of the same grade/position | |
| Opportunitiy to go on courses other than study days/workshops | |
| Opportunity to go on study days/workshops | |
| Notice of off duty | |
| Combining work hours with social life | |
| Frequency with which I leave work on time | |
| Availability of equipment(e.g. hoists) | |
| Availability of supplies (e.g. dressings) | |
| Availability of equipment (e.g. audiovisual, art materials, books) | |
| Availability of facilities (e.g. day room, quiet room, interview room) | |
| Pay in relation to level of responsibility |
Intentions and nursing at 18 months and 3 years
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | ||
| 6 months | Unlikely/Uncertain | 17 | 26 | 48 | 74 | 16 | 35 | 30 | 65 |
| Likely | 161 | 9 | 1679 | 91 | 193 | 13 | 1300 | 87 | |
| 18 months | Unlikely/Uncertain | 28 | 31 | 63 | 69 | 25 | 37 | 42 | 63 |
| Likely | 150 | 8 | 1667 | 92 | 184 | 12 | 1289 | 88 | |
| 3 years | Unlikely/Uncertain | 45 | 27 | 122 | 73 | ||||
| Likely | 165 | 12 | 1209 | 88 | |||||
| 18 months | Unlikely/Uncertain | 38 | 33 | 77 | 67 | 28 | 33 | 56 | 67 |
| Likely | 137 | 8 | 1663 | 92 | 182 | 12 | 1281 | 88 | |
| 3 years | Unlikely/Uncertain | 44 | 27 | 119 | 73 | ||||
| Likely | 165 | 12 | 1217 | 88 | |||||
| 3 years | Unlikely/Uncertain | 64 | 39 | 100 | 61 | ||||
| Likely | 148 | 11 | 1260 | 89 | |||||
Intentions to work as a nurse in the future : SEM and logistic regression models
| 6 months | 6 months | 18 months | |
| 18 months | 3 years | 3 years | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| (n = 2238) | (n = 2239) | (n = 1860) | |
| JS – Factor 1 | 1.11 (0.59 – 2.12) | 1.58 (0.99 – 2.53) | |
| JS – Factor 2 | 1.20 (0.70 – 2.05) | 0.96 (0.65 – 1.44) | |
| JS – Factor 1 | 0.89 (0.52 – 1.54) | ||
| JS – Factor 2 | 1.54 (0.97 – 2.44) | ||
| LN at 18 months | 7.85 (4.90 – 12.60)c | ||
| LN at 3 years | 4.44 (3.22 – 6.11)c | 2.99 (2.02 – 4.41)c | |
| LN at 3 years | 5.11 (3.53 – 7.41)c | ||
| 6 months | 3.88 (2.20 – 6.87)c | 2.88 (1.72 – 4.81)c | |
| 18 months | 4.71 (3.12 – 7.10)c | ||
| (n = 2045) | (n = 2045) | (n = 1553) | |
| (10.624, .059) | (15.102, .010)a | (2.650, .75) | |
| Care | 0.94 (0.72 – 1.23) | 1.00 (0.82 – 1.21) | 0.86 (0.65 – 1.14) |
| Staffing | 0.79 (0.62 – 1.00)a | 0.92 (0.78 – 1.09) | 1.06 (0.84 – 1.33) |
| W-L Balance | 1.20 (0.92 – 1.55) | 1.18 (0.97 – 1.42) | 1.15 (0.89 – 1.49) |
| Resources | 1.31 (0.91 – 1.40) | 1.13 (0.97 – 1.32) | 0.96 (0.77 – 1.19) |
| Pay | 1.21 (1.01 – 1.45)a | 1.18 (1.03 – 1.35)a | 1.01 (0.84 – 1.21) |
| (4.343, .23) | (0.671, .88) | (7.010, .072) | |
| Development | 1.16 (0.87 – 1.55) | 1.00 (0.81 – 1.24) | 1.22 (0.92 – 1.64) |
| Relationships | 1.18 (0.87 – 1.60) | 1.09 (0.87 – 1.37) | 1.00 (0.74 – 1.37) |
| Education | 0.86 (0.72 – 1.04) | 1.00 (0.87 – 1.14) | 1.15 (0.96 – 1.39) |
a < .05; b < .01; c < .001
JS = Job satisfaction; LN = Likelihood of nursing
Working as a nurse : SEM and logistic regression models
| 18 months | 3 years | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| (n = 2136) | (n = 1780) | |
| JS – Factor 1 | 0.70 (0.39 – 1.28) | |
| JS – Factor 2 | 1.45 (0.88 – 2.39) | |
| JS – Factor 1 | 0.67 (0.39 – 1.17) | |
| JS – Factor 2 | 1.45 (0.91 – 2.30) | |
| LN at 6 months | ||
| LN at 18 months | 2.49 (1.38 – 4.57)b | |
| LN at 3 years | 1.51 (0.94 – 2.41) | |
| LN at 18 months | 4.01 (2.39 – 6.71)c | |
| LN at 3 years | 1.43 (0.88 – 2.33) | |
| LN at 3 years | 3.19 (2.06 – 4.94)c | |
| Qualification | 1.17 (0.69 – 1.98) | 0.71 (0.40 – 1.26) |
| 6 months | 7.62 (4.20 – 13.83)c | 2.72 (1.35 – 5.50)b |
| 18 months | 4.18 (2.72 – 6.44)c | |
| (n = 1713) | (n = 1235) | |
| (1.795, .88) | (3.869, .57) | |
| Care | 0.86 (0.67 – 1.11) | 0.96 (0.73 – 1.27) |
| Staffing | 1.03 (0.84 – 1.28) | 0.84 (0.67 – 1.06) |
| W-L Balance | 0.97 (0.76 – 1.24) | 0.98 (0.76 – 1.27) |
| Resources | 1.03 (0.85 – 1.25) | 1.11 (0.90 – 1.38) |
| Pay | 0.98 (0.83 – 1.16) | 1.06 (0.89 – 1.27) |
| (9.498, .023)a | (0.647, .89) | |
| Development | 1.50 (1.15 – 1.97)b | 1.09 (0.82 – 1.44) |
| Relationships | 0.75 (0.56 – 1.01) | 0.98 (0.72 – 1.33) |
| Education | 0.98 (0.83 – 1.16) | 1.03 (0.85 – 1.24) |
a < .05; b < .01; c < .001
JS = Job satisfaction; LN = Likelihood of nursing
Figure 1Path model of job satisfaction, future intentions and nursing at 18 months and 3 years. Odds Ratios are shown against each path between an exogenous (independent) and an endogenous (dependent) variable. LN denotes the likelihood of nursing (at a time-point in the future). Only those job satisfaction factors that are statistically significant are shown in the diagram and odds ratios are presented for the bottom (1 = very unsatisfied) and top (5 = very satisfied) of the 5 point scale.