| Literature DB >> 31277478 |
Muhammad Asif1, Arif Jameel1, Abid Hussain1, Jinsoo Hwang2, Noman Sahito3.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between transformational leadership (TL), structural empowerment (SE), job satisfaction (JS), nurse-assessed adverse patient outcomes (APO), and the quality of care (QOC). The study further investigates the mediating effects of SE and JS on TL-APO and TL-QOC relationships. A total of 600 nurses working at 17 government hospitals in Pakistan completed the survey. The hypothesized model was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. We found a positive relationship between TL, SE, JS, and QOC but negative relationships between TL and APO, SE and APO, and JS and APO. Our study further suggests that SE and JS strongly mediate both TL-APO and TL-QOC relationships.Entities:
Keywords: Pakistan; government hospitals; job satisfaction; nurse-assessed adverse patient outcomes; quality of care; structural empowerment; transformational leadership
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31277478 PMCID: PMC6651060 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16132381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic Characteristics.
| Demographic Characteristics | Number ( | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Female | 386 | 100 | |
| Male | 0 | 0 | |
| Age (years) | |||
| 21–30 | 267 | 69.17 | |
| 31–40 | 81 | 20.98 | |
| 41–50 | 35 | 9.07 | |
| 51–60 | 3 | 0.78 | |
| Education | |||
| Nursing Diploma | 53 | 13.73 | |
| Associate Degree | 81 | 20.98 | |
| Bachelor | 244 | 63.21 | |
| Master | 8 | 2.07 | |
| Employment Status | |||
| Full time | 298 | 77.20 | |
| Part time | 88 | 22.80 | |
| Experience (years) | |||
| 1–5 | 241 | 62.44 | |
| 6–10 | 87 | 22.54 | |
| 11–15 | 23 | 5.96 | |
| 16–20 | 14 | 3.63 | |
| 21–25 | 10 | 2.59 | |
| 26–30 | 8 | 2.07 | |
| 31–35 | 3 | 0.78 | |
Note 1: bachelor degree is enough for nurses to work in Pakistan.
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
| Mean | SD | Correlations | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1. TL | 3.38 | 0.98 |
| ||||
| 2. SE | 2.97 | 0.53 | 0.38 ** |
| |||
| 3. JS | 3.13 | 0.81 | 0.43 ** | 0.48 ** |
| ||
| 4. QOC | 2.80 | 0.76 | 0.30 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.36 ** |
| |
| 5. APO | 2.91 | 0.63 | −0.26 ** | −0.34 ** | −0.29 ** | −0.24 ** |
|
Significance (2-tailed): ** p < 0.01. Square root of AVE is shown in parenthesis (bold) demonstrating discriminant validity. Note: SD: standard deviation; TL: transformational leadership; SE: structural empowerment; JS: job satisfaction; QOC: quality of care; APO: adverse patient outcomes; AVE: average variance extracted.
Overall measurement model.
| Construct | Cronbach’s α | Items | Stand. Factor Loadings | S.E. | T | AVE | Composite Reliability (CR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TL | 0.87 | TL1 | 0.84 | - | - | 0.67 | 0.89 |
| TL2 | 0.85 | 0.051 | 16.67 | ||||
| TL3 | 0.78 | 0.053 | 14.72 | ||||
| TL4 | 0.72 | 0.050 | 14.40 | ||||
| TL5 | 0.83 | 0.053 | 15.66 | ||||
| TL6 | 0.88 | 0.054 | 16.30 | ||||
| TL7 | 0.87 | 0.054 | 16.11 | ||||
| SE | 0.82 | SE1 | 0.83 | - | 0.64 | 0.85 | |
| SE2 | 0.85 | 0.052 | 16.35 | ||||
| SE3 | 0.79 | 0.051 | 15.49 | ||||
| SE4 | 0.81 | 0.052 | 15.58 | ||||
| SE5 | 0.76 | 0.051 | 14.90 | ||||
| SE6 | 0.81 | 0.051 | 15.88 | ||||
| SE7 | 0.83 | 0.052 | 15.96 | ||||
| SE8 | 0.85 | 0.051 | 16.67 | ||||
| SE9 | 0.79 | 0.050 | 15.80 | ||||
| SE10 | 0.78 | 0.050 | 15.60 | ||||
| SE11 | 0.74 | 0.052 | 14.23 | ||||
| SE12 | 0.82 | 0.051 | 16.08 | ||||
| JS | 0.81 | JS1 | 0.84 | - | 0.65 | 0.84 | |
| JS2 | 0.79 | 0.052 | 15.19 | ||||
| JS3 | 0.80 | 0.051 | 15.69 | ||||
| APO | 0.78 | APO1 | 0.81 | - | 0.66 | 0.82 | |
| APO2 | 0.73 | 0.050 | 14.60 | ||||
| APO3 | 0.78 | 0.051 | 15.29 | ||||
| APO4 | 0.85 | 0.052 | 16.35 | ||||
| APO5 | 0.82 | 0.051 | 16.08 | ||||
| QOC | 0.81 | QOC1 | 0.88 | - | 0.63 | 0.83 | |
| QOC2 | 0.83 | 0.053 | 15.66 | ||||
| QOC3 | 0.76 | 0.051 | 14.90 | ||||
| QOC4 | 0.74 | 0.051 | 14.51 |
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
| Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | CFI | IFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-Factor model | 479.13 | 287 | 1.67 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.03 | 0.034 |
| 4-Factor model (SE + JS combined) | 653.39 | 302 | 2.16 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.08 | 0.059 |
| 4-Factor model (APO + QOC combined) | 598.27 | 302 | 1.98 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.06 | 0.052 |
| 1-Factor model | 4557.69 | 293 | 15.56 | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.27 | 0.195 |
Note: SE: structural empowerment; JS: job satisfaction; APO: adverse patient outcomes; QOC: quality of care; df: degree of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR: standardized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA: root-mean-square error of approximation.
β coefficients for testing hypotheses 1–6.
| Path | Standardized β | S.E. | T | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TL | 0.37 | 0.048 | 7.71 | <0.01 | (**) |
| TL | 0.41 | 0.047 | 8.72 | <0.01 | (**) |
| SE | 0.43 | 0.048 | 8.96 | <0.01 | (**) |
| JS | 0.31 | 0.051 | 6.08 | <0.01 | (**) |
| SE | −0.32 | 0.049 | −6.53 | <0.01 | (**) |
| JS | −0.29 | 0.048 | −6.04 | <0.01 | (**) |
Note: TL: transformational leadership; JS: job satisfaction; SE: structural empowerment; QOC: quality of care; APO: adverse patient outcomes; S.E.: standard error.
Figure 1The results of the structural equation modeling (SEM) for mediation effects.