| Literature DB >> 32536884 |
Beatrice I J M Van der Heijden1,2,3,4,5, Inge Houkes6, Anja Van den Broeck7,8, Katarzyna Czabanowska9,10.
Abstract
Given the increasing shortage of active nurses in industrialized countries throughout the world, it is of utmost importance to protect their health, satisfaction, and commitment so that they can continue working in their healthcare institution. Building upon the proposed pattern of specific relationships developed by Houkes et al. (2003), we investigated a model of relationships among working conditions (quantitative, emotional, and physical demands), labor relations (quality of interpersonal relations and psychological support), work content (meaning of work, influence at work), and employment conditions (opportunities for development) on the one hand, and health, job satisfaction, and institutional affective commitment on the other hand, for younger versus older nurses. We used data of 3,399 nurses from the Netherlands and 3,636 nurses from Poland from the larger European Nurses' Early Exit Study (NEXT) and performed longitudinal structural equation modeling (SEM) and multi-group analyses. The results showed that the proposed pattern of relationships generally holds, but that the nurses' level of commitment is more determined by meaning of work than by opportunities for development and that psychological support is associated with job satisfaction (and not only with burnout as hypothesized, in both the Netherlands and Poland). Comparing younger (<40 years) versus older (≥40 years) nurses, we found ample support for differences in the proposed model relationships across age category, some being in line with and some being contradictory to our expectations. We argue that a non-normative, tailor-made approach to aging at work might help us to protect the nurses' career sustainability across the life span. This study provides evidence-based practical recommendations on how to enhance the health, job satisfaction, and commitment of nurses throughout their working life.Entities:
Keywords: age; burnout; conditions of employment; institutional affective commitment; job satisfaction; labor relations; nurses; work content
Year: 2020 PMID: 32536884 PMCID: PMC7267024 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model: hypothesized pattern of relationships.
Demographics, descriptives and reliabilities for the samples of the Netherlands and Poland (N ranges from 1,150 to 4,200).
| Age | 18–64/70 | – | 38.20 | 9.73 | – | 38.72 | 7.63 | |
| Age in two groups | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| −≤40 | 57.3 | 57.9 | ||||||
| −>40 | 42.7 | 42.1 | ||||||
| Gender | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| - Female | 90.7 | 99.0 | ||||||
| - Male | 9.3 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Type of institution | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| - Hospital | 62.8% | 74.0% | ||||||
| - Nursing home | 18.7% | 4.2% | ||||||
| - Home care | 18.5% | 7.1% | ||||||
| 1 | T0 quantitative demands | 1–5 | 0.70 | 2.99 | 0.55 | 0.69 | 3.38 | 0.66 |
| 2 | T0 emotional demands | 1–5 | 0.65 | 3.45 | 0.55 | 0.77 | 3.49 | 0.77 |
| 3 | T0 physical demands | 1–4 | 0.60 | 2.22 | 0.70 | 0.64 | 2.64 | 0.80 |
| 4 | T0 interpersonal relations | 1–4* | 0.72 | 2.79 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 2.64 | 0.58 |
| 5 | T0 psychological support (1 item) | 1–4 | – | 2.72 | 0.58 | – | 2.21 | 0.80 |
| 6 | T0 meaning of work | 1–5 | 0.82 | 4.20 | 0.58 | 0.73 | 3.99 | 0.82 |
| 7 | T0 influence at work | 1–5 | 0.71 | 3.19 | 0.66 | 0.83 | 2.97 | 0.95 |
| 8 | T0 opportunities development | 1–5 | 0.70 | 3.62 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 3.67 | 0.83 |
| 9 | T0 burnout | 1–5 | 0.84 | 1.68 | 0.60 | 0.91 | 2.61 | 0.99 |
| 10 | T0 disability** | 1–10 | 0.31 (0.90) | 0.46 | 1.11 | 0.57 (0.94) | 1.46 | 1.59 |
| 11 | T0 job satisfaction | 1–4 | 0.70 | 2.84 | 0.37 | 0.78 | 2.39 | 0.55 |
| 12 | T0 institutional commitment | 1–5 | 0.76 | 3.21 | 0.66 | 0.75 | 3.43 | 0.88 |
| 13 | T1 burnout | 1–5 | 0.85 | 1.65 | 0.59 | 0.92 | 2.80 | 1.02 |
| 14 | T1 disability** | 1–10 | 0.34 (0.92) | 0.42 | 1.10 | 0.47 (0.92) | 1.34 | 1.58 |
| 15 | T1 job satisfaction | 1–4 | 0.73 | 2.85 | 0.40 | 0.79 | 2.32 | 0.56 |
| 16 | T1 institutional commitment | 1–5 | 0.78 | 3.05 | 0.68 | 0.74 | 3.25 | 0.80 |
Correlations between the study variables (Netherlands: left lower corner; Poland: right upper corner; N ranges from 1,150 to 4,200).
| 1 | T0 quantitative demands | – | 0.29* | 0.31* | −0.23* | −0.28* | −0.12* | −0.35* | 0.05* | 0.27* | 0.18* | −0.35* | 0.21* | 0.16* | 0.12* | −0.17* | −0.12* |
| 2 | T0 emotional demands | 0.72* | – | 0.18* | −0.04* | −0.12* | –0.02 | −0.10* | 0.02 | 0.18* | 0.14* | −0.21* | −0.09* | 0.12* | 0.11* | −0.11* | –0.04 |
| 3 | T0 physical demands | 0.40* | 0.28* | – | −0.07* | −0.13* | –0.01 | −0.15* | 0.03 | 0.15* | 0.15* | −0.19* | −0.07* | 0.06* | 0.07* | −0.10* | –0.04 |
| 4 | T0 interpersonal relations | −0.16* | 0.03 | −0.06* | – | 0.42* | 0.27* | 0.28* | 0.04* | −0.21* | −0.08* | 0.34* | 0.38* | −0.09* | –0.05 | 0.18* | 0.19* |
| 5 | T0 psychological support | −0.24* | −0.11* | −0.18* | 0.27* | – | 0.23* | 0.22* | 0.02 | −0.26* | −0.15* | 0.56* | 0.37* | −0.16* | −0.12* | 0.21* | 0.16* |
| 6 | T0 meaning of work | 0.04* | 0.05* | 0.01 | 0.19* | 0.15* | – | 0.22* | 0.21* | −0.19* | −0.09* | 0.31* | 0.41* | −0.09* | –0.04 | 0.17* | 0.21* |
| 7 | T0 influence at work | −0.36* | −0.08* | −0.21* | 0.17* | 0.22* | 0.14* | – | 0.06* | −0.18* | −0.08* | 0.25* | 0.27* | −0.10* | –0.04 | 0.15* | 0.19* |
| 8 | T0 opportunities development | 0.03* | 0.09* | 0.03 | 0.10* | 0.07* | 0.28* | 0.12* | – | –0.01 | 0.03 | 0.06* | 0.10* | −0.05* | –0.03 | 0.08* | 0.15* |
| 9 | T0 burnout | 0.25* | 0.12* | 0.15* | −0.13* | −0.18* | −0.06* | −0.15* | –0.01 | – | 0.37* | −0.30* | −0.20* | 0.35* | 0.17* | −0.15* | −0.10* |
| 10 | T0 disability | 0.09* | 0.05* | 0.09* | −0.09* | −0.09* | 0.03 | 0.05* | –0.02 | 0.23* | – | −0.20* | −0.10* | 0.22* | 0.34* | −0.13* | −0.05* |
| 11 | T0 job satisfaction | −0.30* | −0.15* | −0.23* | 0.27* | 0.43* | 0.28* | 0.26* | 0.15* | −0.23* | −0.13* | – | 0.43* | −0.16* | −0.13* | 0.29* | 0.19* |
| 12 | T0 institutional commitment | −0.13* | −0.10* | −0.15* | 0.21* | 0.26* | 0.26* | 0.19* | 0.10* | −0.07* | −0.03* | 0.36* | – | −0.10* | −0.05* | 0.22* | 0.34* |
| 13 | T1 Burnout | 0.18* | 0.07* | 0.07* | −0.11* | −0.16* | −0.16* | −0.09* | –0.02 | 0.58* | 0.15* | −0.13* | −0.07* | – | 0.37* | −0.35* | −0.22* |
| 14 | T1 disability | 0.10* | 0.05 | 0.07* | –0.04 | −0.09* | 0.09* | –0.02 | 0.04 | 0.17* | 0.33* | −0.10* | –0.03 | 0.21* | – | −0.21* | −0.09* |
| 15 | T1 job satisfaction | −0.20* | −0.09* | −0.17* | 0.19* | 0.25* | 0.25* | 0.13* | 0.02 | −0.21* | −0.13* | 0.39* | 0.18* | −0.26* | −0.14* | – | 0.39* |
| 16 | T1 institutional commitment | −0.13* | −0.09* | −0.17* | 0.19* | 0.20* | 0.20* | 0.09* | 0.05 | −0.11* | –0.05 | 0.26* | 0.57* | −0.11* | –0.04 | 0.32* | – |
Fit measures for all employees and per age group (<40 and >40) for the Netherlands and Poland.
| M1 base model | 519.493* (68) | 0.030 | 0.948 | 0.868 | 0.815 | 0.830 | 0.083 | |
| M2 adjusted model | 333.029* (66) | 186.464* (2) | 0.025 | 0.964 | 0.906 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.065 |
| M1 base model | 1000.836* (68) | 0.062 | 0.935 | 0.835 | 0.786 | 0.794 | 0.101 | |
| M2 adjusted model | 378.245* (65) | 622.591* (3) | 0.048 | 0.971 | 0.923 | 0.919 | 0.931 | 0.060 |
| M1 base model | 311.041* (68) | 0.026 | 0.947 | 0.867 | 0.806 | 0.832 | 0.080 | |
| M2 adjusted model | 195.097* (66) | 115.944* (2) | 0.021 | 0.965 | 0.908 | 0.878 | 0.911 | 0.059 |
| M1 base model | 266.856* (68) | 0.037 | 0.937 | 0.841 | 0.805 | 0.836 | 0.086 | |
| M2 adjusted model | 157.316* (65) | 109.541* (3) | 0.031 | 0.958 | 0.891 | 0.885 | 0.924 | 0.060 |
| M1 base model | 634.397* (68) | 0.060 | 0.932 | 0.828 | 0.782 | 0.794 | 0.101 | |
| M2 adjusted model | 268.529* (65) | 365.868* (3) | 0.049 | 0.966 | 0.911 | 0.908 | 0.926 | 0.062 |
| M1 base model | 417.311* (68) | 0.068 | 0.928 | 0.820 | 0.772 | 0.792 | 0.100 | |
| M2 adjusted model | 189.524* (65) | 227.787 *(3) | 0.055 | 0.962 | 0.901 | 0.896 | 0.926 | 0.061 |
FIGURE 2Path coefficients M2 for NL/Poland, all nurses. Red paths have been added for both countries based upon the modification indices; blue path has been added in Poland only based upon modification index; gray paths indicate non-significance for both countries; n.s. implies non-significance for one country; model fit in NL and Poland appears to be good after having added these paths.
Fit measures and chi-square difference tests of the nested models in the Multi-Group Analyses (young versus old) for the Netherlands and Poland.
| M1 fully constrained invariant modela | 364.583* (150) | 0.876 | 0.917 | 0.040 | ||
| M2 partially invariantb | 326.647* (133) | M1-M2 | 37.936* (17) | 0.890 | 0.927 | 0.039 |
| M3 fully non-invariant modelc | 325.523* (130) | M2-M3 | 1.124 (3) | 0.877 | 0.919 | 0.039 |
| M1-M3 | 39.06* (20) | |||||
| M1 fully constrained invariant modela | 442.574* (148) | 0.907 | 0.934 | 0.039 | ||
| M2 partially invariant modeld | 414.643* (131) | M1-M2 | 27.931* (17) | 0.912 | 0.936 | 0.040 |
| M3 non-invariant modelc | 413.405* (128) | M2-M3 | 1.238 (3) | 0.913 | 0.936 | 0.041 |
| M1-M3 | 29.142 (20) | |||||
FIGURE 3Path coefficients young/old M2 MGA the Netherlands. Red paths were added for both younger and older nurses based on modification indices; green path was added based on modification index in older nurses’ sample; gray paths indicate non-significance for both age groups; n.s. implies non-significance for one age group; model fit for younger and older nurses appears to be good after having added these paths.
FIGURE 4Path coefficients young/old M2 MGA Poland. Red paths were added for both younger and older nurses based on modification indices; blue path was added based on the modification index in younger nurses’ sample; green path was added based on the modification index in older nurses’ sample; gray paths indicate non-significance for both age groups; n.s. implies non-significance for one age group; model fit for younger and older nurses appears to be good after having added these paths.
Overview of confirmation of hypotheses tested (cross-sectional; cl = cross-lagged confirmation as well; ns = not significant).
| 1 | – | |||
| - Quantitative demands = > burnout | Confirmed | Confirmed | ||
| - Emotional demands = > burnout | Not confirmed (ns) | Only cl | ||
| - Physical demands = > disability | Confirmed (cl) | Confirmed | ||
| - Quality of interpersonal relations = > burnout | Not confirmed (ns) | Not confirmed (ns) | ||
| - Psychological support = > burnout | Confirmed | Confirmed (cl) | ||
| 2 | Psychological support (NL and POL) | |||
| - Meaning of work = > satisfaction | Confirmed (cl) | Only cl | ||
| - Influence at work = > satisfaction | Confirmed | Confirmed (cl) | ||
| 3 | Psychological support (POL) | |||
| - Opportunities for development = > commitment | Not confirmed (ns) | Confirmed | Meaning of work (NL and POL) | |
| 4 | – | |||
| - Quantitative demands = > burnout | Not confirmed (relationship is stronger for younger nurses) | Not confirmed (relationship is stronger for younger nurses) | ||
| - Emotional demands = > burnout | Confirmed | Not confirmed (relationship is ns for older nurses) | ||
| - Physical demands = > disability | Confirmed (not cl) | Not confirmed (relationship is stronger for younger nurses) | ||
| 5 | – | |||
| - Quality of interpersonal relations = > burnout | Not confirmed (relationship is ns for both young and old) | Confirmed | ||
| - Psychological support = > burnout | Confirmed | Not confirmed (relationship is somewhat stronger for younger nurses) | ||
| 6 | Psychological support (NL and POL): - Equally strong for young and old | |||
| 7 | Psychological support (NL and POL): - NL: stronger for old - POL: equally strong for young and old | |||
| - Opportunities for development = > commitment | Not confirmed (relationship is ns for both young and old) | Not confirmed (relationship is stronger for older nurses) | Quality of interpersonal relations (POL): - Stronger for old Meaning of work (NL and POL): - stronger for young | |