| Literature DB >> 33921193 |
Ying Wang1, Changyong Liang1, Shuping Zhao1, Yiming Ma1, Yuguang Xie1.
Abstract
The outbreak of COVID-19 in China at the beginning of 2020 has made the problems that the aged care agency face with large mobility and high turnover of aged nursing staff become more serious. Aiming at this problem, this paper incorporates psychological capital and social panic into the model from the perspective of the organizational safety climate and constructs a theoretical model of the mechanism of the effect on nursing staff's willingness to stay in the context of the outbreak. Through a questionnaire survey in an aged care agency in Anhui Province, a total of 321 valid questionnaires were collected for empirical analysis. The results show that: (1) the safety climate of the organization has a significant positive impact on the transactional psychological capital and interpersonal psychological capital of nursing staff in the aged care industry and their willingness to stay; (2) transactional psychological capital and social panic have a significant positive impact on the willingness to stay of nursing staff, while interpersonal psychological capital has no significant impact on the willingness to stay; (3) the mediating role of transactional psychological capital and interpersonal psychological capital between the safety climate and the willingness to stay is established, and the moderating role of social panic between psychological capital and willingness to stay is also established. Finally, based on the research conclusions, corresponding countermeasures and suggestions are put forward to deal with the problems that occur in special periods.Entities:
Keywords: nursing staff in the aged care industry; psychological capital; safety climate; willingness to stay
Year: 2021 PMID: 33921193 PMCID: PMC8069570 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9040451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Model of the theoretical structure.
Sample Statistics of Nursing Staff in the Aged Care Industry (N = 321).
| Item | Characteristic | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 78 | 24.30% |
| Female | 243 | 75.70% | |
| Age | ≤25 years | 64 | 19.93% |
| 26–35 years | 74 | 23.06% | |
| 36–45 years | 130 | 40.5% | |
| ≥46 years | 53 | 16.51% | |
| Education background | High school/secondary school and below | 170 | 52.96% |
| College | 79 | 24.61% | |
| Undergraduate and above | 67 | 20.87% | |
| Master’s degree | 5 | 1.56% | |
| Working years | 0–3 months | 56 | 17.45% |
| 3–6 months | 16 | 4.98% | |
| 6 months to 1 year | 58 | 18.07% | |
| 1–2 years | 79 | 24.61% | |
| >2 years | 112 | 34.89% | |
| Monthly income | ≤360.75 | 60 | 18.69% |
| 360.76–505.05 | 52 | 16.20% | |
| 505.06–649.35 | 128 | 39.88% | |
| 649.36–793.65 | 59 | 18.38% | |
| ≥793.66 | 22 | 6.85% |
Descriptive Statistical Analysis.
| Variable | Item | Mean Value | Standard Deviation | Factor Loading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety climate | SC1 | 5.009 | 1.582 | 0.774 |
| SC2 | 4.769 | 1.384 | 0.756 | |
| SC3 | 4.844 | 1.51 | 0.84 | |
| SC4 | 4.984 | 1.578 | 0.862 | |
| SC5 | 4.947 | 1.496 | 0.856 | |
| SC6 | 4.863 | 1.551 | 0.816 | |
| SC7 | 4.956 | 1.465 | 0.821 | |
| SC8 | 4.966 | 1.537 | 0.82 | |
| SC9 | 5.019 | 1.575 | 0.819 | |
| SC10 | 5.075 | 1.557 | 0.786 | |
| SC11 | 5.218 | 1.564 | 0.796 | |
| SC12 | 5.112 | 1.585 | 0.789 | |
| SC13 | 5.022 | 1.574 | 0.808 | |
| SC14 | 5.019 | 1.537 | 0.799 | |
| Transactional Psychological Capital | TPC1 | 5.047 | 1.656 | 0.833 |
| TPC2 | 4.857 | 1.642 | 0.787 | |
| TPC3 | 4.95 | 1.592 | 0.795 | |
| TPC4 | 5.019 | 1.549 | 0.801 | |
| TPC5 | 5.056 | 1.609 | 0.832 | |
| TPC6 | 5.016 | 1.572 | 0.799 | |
| TPC7 | 5.09 | 1.579 | 0.809 | |
| TPC8 | 5.137 | 1.583 | 0.801 | |
| TPC9 | 5.053 | 1.571 | 0.801 | |
| TPC10 | 4.991 | 1.586 | 0.766 | |
| TPC11 | 4.956 | 1.507 | 0.818 | |
| TPC12 | 4.972 | 1.609 | 0.818 | |
| TPC13 | 5.04 | 1.553 | 0.809 | |
| Interpersonal Psychological Capital | IPC1 | 4.991 | 1.588 | 0.79 |
| IPC2 | 5.072 | 1.503 | 0.806 | |
| IPC3 | 5.037 | 1.592 | 0.802 | |
| IPC4 | 5.012 | 1.573 | 0.802 | |
| IPC5 | 4.96 | 1.579 | 0.792 | |
| IPC6 | 4.804 | 1.575 | 0.761 | |
| IPC7 | 4.953 | 1.608 | 0.763 | |
| IPC8 | 5.053 | 1.573 | 0.771 | |
| IPC9 | 5.034 | 1.694 | 0.827 | |
| IPC10 | 5.006 | 1.614 | 0.813 | |
| IPC11 | 4.988 | 1.575 | 0.788 | |
| IPC12 | 4.91 | 1.641 | 0.777 | |
| IPC13 | 4.963 | 1.55 | 0.776 | |
| IPC14 | 4.95 | 1.599 | 0.805 | |
| IPC15 | 4.872 | 1.574 | 0.797 | |
| IPC16 | 4.854 | 1.652 | 0.829 | |
| IPC17 | 4.931 | 1.608 | 0.786 | |
| Social Panic | SP1 | 4.754 | 1.832 | 0.738 |
| SP2 | 4.745 | 1.844 | 0.78 | |
| SP3 | 4.701 | 1.874 | 0.751 | |
| SP4 | 4.66 | 1.793 | 0.737 | |
| SP5 | 4.984 | 1.58 | 0.834 | |
| SP6 | 5.028 | 1.585 | 0.812 | |
| Willingness to Stay | WTS1 | 4.738 | 1.502 | 0.842 |
| WTS2 | 4.763 | 1.489 | 0.908 | |
| WTS3 | 4.879 | 1.406 | 0.909 |
Reliability and Validity Tests.
| Item | Alpha | CR | AVE | TPC | IPC | SC | WTS | SP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | 0.955 | 0.96 | 0.649 | 0.805 | ||||
| IPC | 0.963 | 0.967 | 0.63 | 0.671 | 0.793 | |||
| SC | 0.96 | 0.964 | 0.657 | 0.311 | 0.421 | 0.811 | ||
| WTS | 0.864 | 0.917 | 0.787 | 0.361 | 0.333 | 0.529 | 0.887 | |
| SP | 0.885 | 0.901 | 0.603 | 0.243 | 0.24 | 0.498 | 0.454 | 0.776 |
Figure 2Structural model test results. Note: ** p < 0.01.
Moderating Effect Test 1.
| Variable | Willingness to Stay | Willingness to Stay | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized Coefficient | T Value | Standardized Coefficient | T Value | |
| Sex | –0.016 | –0.287 | –0.013 | –0.235 |
| Age | –0.068 | –1.525 | –0.069 | –1.41 |
| Education background | 0.034 | 0.510 | 0.047 | 0.911 |
| Working years | –0.089 | –1.756 | –0.086 | –1.628 |
| Transactional psychological capital | 0.341 ** | 6.507 | 0.314 | 5.923 |
| Social panic | 0.109 * | 2.080 | 0.092 | 1.750 |
| Transactional psychological capital and social panic | −0.144 | −2.707 | ||
| R2 | 0.132 | 0. 149 | ||
| F value | 25.346 | 19.677 | ||
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 3Moderating effect 1.
Moderating Effect Test 2.
| Variable | Willingness to Stay | Willingness to Stay | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized Coefficient | T Value | Standardized Coefficient | T Value | |
| Sex | –0.02 | –0.367 | –0.016 | –0.238 |
| Age | –0.089 | –1.735 | –0.086 | –1.688 |
| Education background | 0.035 | 0.742 | 0.068 | 1.281 |
| Working years | –0.091 | –1.865 | –0.09 | –1.812 |
| Interpersonal psychological capital | 0.315 ** | 5.963 | 0.285 ** | 5.439 |
| Social panic | 0.123 * | 2.328 | 0.107 * | 2.048 |
| Interpersonal psychological capital and social panic | - | - | −0.189 | −3.597 |
| R2 | 0.115 | 0.147 | ||
| F value | 21.875 | 19.442 | ||
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4Moderating effect 2.
Structure Parameter Estimates.
| Hypothesized Path | Standardized Path Coefficient | T Value | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Safety climate → Psychological capital | 0.311 **/0.421 ** | 4.921/7.013 | 0 | Supported |
| H2: Safety climate → Willingness to stay | 0.354 * | 5.354 | 0 | Supported |
| H3: Psychological capital → Willingness to stay | 0.197 **/−0.004 | 2.533/0.054 | 0.011/0.957 | Supported |
| H4: The mediating role of psychological capital | - | - | - | Supported |
| H5: Social panic → Willingness to stay | 0.231 ** | 4.501 | 0 | Supported |
| H6: Psychological capital → Willingness to stay | - | - | - | Supported |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.