| Literature DB >> 27168960 |
Abdul Kadar Muhammad Masum1, Md Abul Kalam Azad2, Kazi Enamul Hoque3, Loo-See Beh4, Peter Wanke5, Özgün Arslan6.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify the facets influencing job satisfaction and intention to quit of nurses employed in Turkey. Using a non-probability sampling technique, 417 nurses from six large private hospitals were surveyed from March 2014 to June 2014. The nurses' demographic data, their job-related satisfaction and turnover intentions were recorded through a self-administered questionnaire. In this study, descriptive and bivariate analyses were used to explore data, and multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression. Nurses' job satisfaction was found at a moderate level with 61% of the nurses intended to quit. Nevertheless, nurses reported a high satisfaction level with work environment, supervisor support, and co-workers among the selected nine facets of job satisfaction. They also reported a low satisfaction level with contingent reward, fringe benefits, and pay. The impact of demographic characteristics on job satisfaction and intention to quit was also examined. The study revealed a negative relationship between job satisfaction and intention to quit the existing employment. Moreover, satisfaction with supervisor support was the only facet that significantly explained turnover intent when controlling for gender, age, marital status, education, and experience. The implications for nurse management were also described for increasing nurses' job satisfaction and retention. This study is beneficial for hospital management to ensure proper nursing care that would lead to a better quality healthcare service.Entities:
Keywords: Intention to quit; Job satisfaction; Nurse; Nursing; Turkey
Year: 2016 PMID: 27168960 PMCID: PMC4860322 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1896
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Demographic characteristics of the nurses (n = 417).
| Particular | Percentage (%) | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 37 | 155 |
| Female | 63 | 262 |
| 21–25 | 23.5 | 98 |
| 26–30 | 30.7 | 128 |
| 31–35 | 19.6 | 82 |
| 36–40 | 14.0 | 58 |
| 41–45 | 7.6 | 32 |
| ≥46 | 4.6 | 19 |
| Single | 32.8 | 137 |
| Married | 55.4 | 231 |
| Widowed | 7.2 | 30 |
| Divorced | 4.6 | 19 |
| Diploma/Associate degree | 58 | 242 |
| Graduate (Baccalaureate) | 35.3 | 147 |
| Master of science | 6.7 | 28 |
| ≥5 year | 23.5 | 98 |
| 6–15year | 32.6 | 136 |
| 16–25 year | 26.9 | 112 |
| 26–35 years | 10.1 | 42 |
| ≤36 years | 6.9 | 29 |
| General Ward | 25.7 | 107 |
| Pediatric Ward | 7.2 | 30 |
| Incentive care | 24.2 | 101 |
| Day Ward | 42.9 | 179 |
| Permanent morning | 24.2 | 101 |
| Permanent night | 18.5 | 77 |
| Rotating day | 57.3 | 239 |
The means and standard deviations for all items of nine facets of the job satisfaction survey.
| Subscale | Items | Mean | Standard deviation | Rating nurses with opinion as strongly agree or moderately agree (%) | Satisfaction ranking (descending) | Facet Mean of satisfaction | Facet standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pay | Pay1 | 2.79 | 1.60 | 18.7 | 30 | 3.25 | 0.16 |
| Pay2 | 3.26 | 1.53 | 16.2 | 34 | |||
| Pay3 | 3.28 | 1.31 | 23.0 | 23 | |||
| Pay4 | 3.45 | 1.61 | 31.9 | 11 | |||
| Promotion | Pro1 | 3.01 | 1.35 | 18.7 | 31 | 3.34 | 0.25 |
| Pro2 | 3.30 | 1.30 | 26.3 | 15 | |||
| Pro3 | 3.52 | 1.64 | 23.7 | 20 | |||
| Pro4 | 3.54 | 1.48 | 28.0 | 13 | |||
| Supervision | Sup1 | 3.79 | 1.58 | 40.0 | 4 | 3.87 | 0.15 |
| Sup2 | 3.79 | 1.47 | 34.4 | 9 | |||
| Sup3 | 3.81 | 1.52 | 35.0 | 7 | |||
| Sup4 | 4.17 | 1.53 | 43.2 | 3 | |||
| Fringe benefits | Fri1 | 2.64 | 1.23 | 12.4 | 35 | 3.20 | 0.28 |
| Fri2 | 3.20 | 1.40 | 21.9 | 24 | |||
| Fri3 | 3.21 | 1.51 | 19.0 | 28 | |||
| Fri4 | 3.53 | 1.36 | 23.7 | 21 | |||
| Contingent rewards | Con1 | 3.01 | 1.47 | 18.7 | 33 | 3.14 | 0.12 |
| Con2 | 3.08 | 1.44 | 18.7 | 32 | |||
| Con3 | 3.19 | 1.45 | 21.9 | 26 | |||
| Con4 | 3.29 | 1.38 | 21.9 | 25 | |||
| Operating conditions | Ope1 | 2.69 | 1.24 | 11.2 | 36 | 3.25 | 0.46 |
| Ope2 | 3.34 | 1.46 | 24.0 | 18 | |||
| Ope3 | 3.44 | 1.58 | 25.6 | 17 | |||
| Ope4 | 3.64 | 1.39 | 24.4 | 19 | |||
| Coworkers | Cow1 | 3.28 | 1.44 | 26.3 | 16 | 3.84 | 0.59 |
| Cow2 | 3.39 | 1.33 | 21.2 | 27 | |||
| Cow3 | 4.27 | 1.39 | 43.9 | 2 | |||
| Cow4 | 4.21 | 1.67 | 52.7 | 1 | |||
| Work environment | Nat1 | 3.67 | 1.46 | 30.7 | 12 | 3.89 | 0.15 |
| Nat2 | 3.90 | 1.63 | 34.4 | 10 | |||
| Nat3 | 3.95 | 1.43 | 35.7 | 6 | |||
| Nat4 | 4.23 | 1.47 | 38.8 | 5 | |||
| Communication | Com1 | 3.13 | 1.65 | 23.7 | 22 | 3.35 | 0.31 |
| Com2 | 3.13 | 1.42 | 19.3 | 29 | |||
| Com3 | 3.33 | 1.33 | 27.5 | 14 | |||
| Com4 | 3.79 | 1.59 | 35.0 | 8 |
Descriptive values for nurses’ intent to quit the present workplace.
| Level | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Very unlikely | 93 | 22.3 |
| Unlikely | 70 | 16.8 |
| Likely | 152 | 36.5 |
| Very likely | 102 | 24.4 |
Spearman’s rank correlation.
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||
| 2 | Age | 0.19 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | Marital status | 0.25 | 0.32 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||
| 4 | Education level | 0.21 | 0.27 | −0.35 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
| 5 | Experience | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
| 6 | Pay | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| 7 | Promotion | 0.23 | −0.37 | 0.24 | −0.17 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 8 | Supervisory support | 0.24 | −0.17 | 0.14 | 0.18 | −0.37 | −0.16 | 0.31 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 9 | Fringe benefits | 0.14 | 0.18 | −0.17 | 0.15 | −0.17 | 0.24 | 0.28 | −0.15 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 10 | Contingent rewards | −0.17 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.31 | 0.27 | −0.14 | 0.17 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 11 | Operating conditions | −0.15 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.24 | −0.17 | 0.23 | 0.24 | −0.17 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 1.00 | |||||
| 12 | Coworkers | −0.26 | −0.18 | 0.27 | 0.14 | −0.15 | 0.24 | 0.14 | −0.15 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.18 | 1.00 | ||||
| 13 | Work environment | −0.27 | −0.17 | −0.37 | −0.17 | −0.24 | 0.28 | −0.17 | −0.24 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 1.00 | |||
| 14 | Communication | 0.18 | 0.25 | −0.17 | −0.15 | −0.18 | 0.27 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.24 | −0.17 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 1.00 | ||
| 15 | Job satisfaction | 0.60 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.66 | 0.87 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.53 | −0.75 | 0.59 | 1.00 | |
| 16 | Intention to quit | 0.18 | −0.37 | 0.17 | 0.57 | −0.45 | −0.17 | −0.26 | 0.14 | −0.17 | −0.24 | 0.28 | 0.24 | −0.21 | 0.19 | −0.57 | 1.00 |
Notes.
P < 0.05 level (two-tailed).
P < 0.01 level (two-tailed).
P < 0.001 level (two-tailed).
Stepwise backward logistic regression of intention to quit.
| SE | Wald ( | OR (95%CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | |||||
| Age | −0.07 | 0.01 | 11.01 | 0.001 | 0.92 (0.74–0.85) |
| Education level | 0.95 | 0.47 | 4.62 | 0.029 | 2.47 (1.12–5.78) |
| Job satisfaction | −0.91 | 0.37 | 5.91 | 0.001 | 0.33 (1.24–0.65) |
| Constant | 5.07 | 1.41 | 8.82 | 0.002 | |
| −2 log likelihood | 142.08 | ||||
| Correct classification rate (%) | 64.47 | ||||
| Model 2 | |||||
| Age | −0.07 | 0.01 | 11.24 | 0.001 | 0.92 (0.74–0.85) |
| Education level | 0.87 | 0.34 | 5.24 | 0.011 | 2.34 (1.05–0.95) |
| Supervisory support | −0.56 | 0.17 | 4.89 | 0.001 | 0.71 (0.54–0.87) |
| Work environment | −0.54 | 0.25 | 6.34 | 0.034 | 0.82 (0.42–0.97) |
| Coworkers | −0.72 | 0.36 | 4.42 | 0.042 | 0.43 (0.14–2.65) |
| Constant | 6.95 | 2.07 | 8.99 | 0.008 | |
| −2 log likelihood | 135.85 | ||||
| Correct classification rate (%) | 66.12 |
Notes.
Variables entered: gender, age, marital status, education level, experience (step 1); job satisfaction (step 2).
Variables entered: gender, age, marital status, education level, experience (step 1); satisfaction, pay, promotion, supervisory support, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, work environment, communication (step 2).