| Literature DB >> 35279168 |
Gustavo Nigenda1, Edson Serván-Mori2, Evelyn Fuentes-Rivera3, Patricia Aristizabal4, Rosa Amarilis Zárate-Grajales1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The close link between human resources for health and the performance of health systems calls for a comprehensive study of the labor market. This paper proposes a performance metric for the nursing labor market, measures its magnitude and analyzes its predictors over the last 15 years. DESIGN AND METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional analysis using data from the quarterly population-based National Survey of Occupation and Employment 2005-2019 (ENOE in Spanish). An aggregate total of 19,311 Mexican nurses (population N = 4,816,930) was analyzed. Nursing labor market performance was defined as the level of non-precarious employment of nurses in the health sector. After describing the sociodemographic, labor and contextual characteristics of the nurses surveyed, we identified the key correlates of market performance using repeated cross-sectional multiple logistic regression analysis. We then estimated the adjusted prevalence of market performance according to the survey period and socioeconomic region of residence.Entities:
Keywords: Labor market; Low- and middle-income countries; Mexico; Nursing; Performance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35279168 PMCID: PMC8917372 DOI: 10.1186/s12960-022-00721-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Resour Health ISSN: 1478-4491
Fig. 1Distribution of nursing professionals according to labor condition. Mexico, 2005–2019. Estimates took into account the design effect of the survey.
Data source: National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) 2005–2019
Main characteristics of the nursing professionals analyzed. Mexico, 2005–2019
| Unemployed | Underemployed | Employees in the health sector | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-precarious | Precarious | Non-precarious | Precarious | ||
| Weighted sample | |||||
| % | |||||
| % and 95% CI | |||||
| Sociodemographic and labor characteristics | |||||
| Men | 6.7 (4.9–8.5) | 6.7 (5.2–8.2) | 29.7 (26.8–32.6) | 31.9 (28.9–34.8) | 25.0 (22.4–27.6) |
| Women | 4.2 (3.7–4.7) | 4.6 (4.1–5.1) | 24.5 (23.4–25.7) | 37.3 (36.1–38.6) | 29.3 (28.1–30.5) |
| Age (y) | |||||
| ≤ 24 | 11.4 (9.6–13.3) | 3.9 (2.8–5.0) | 34.7 (32.1–37.4) | 15.1 (12.8–17.4) | 34.8 (32.2–37.4) |
| 25–54 | 3.3 (2.8–3.8) | 5.0 (4.5–5.5) | 21.9 (20.7–23.0) | 41.9 (40.5–43.3) | 28.0 (26.7–29.2) |
| ≥ 55 | 1.3 (0.5–2.2) | 6.0 (3.9–8.0) | 40.6 (36.1–45.1) | 30.7 (26.5–34.9) | 21.4 (17.8–25.1) |
| Marital status | |||||
| Married or free union | 2.8 (2.3–3.3) | 5.2 (4.5–5.8) | 24.2 (22.8–25.5) | 40.6 (39.1–42.2) | 27.2 (25.8–28.7) |
| Single | 7.8 (6.7–9.0) | 4.2 (3.4–5.0) | 25.4 (23.6–27.3) | 30.4 (28.5–32.3) | 32.1 (30.2–34.0) |
| Divorced or widowed | 2.8 (1.8–3.9) | 5.6 (4.3–6.9) | 29.6 (26.3–32.8) | 36.3 (33.1–39.6) | 25.6 (22.7–28.6) |
| University education | |||||
| No | 4.7 (3.9–5.5) | 5.5 (4.8–6.2) | 29.9 (28.2–31.6) | 32.7 (31.0–34.4) | 27.2 (25.6–28.8) |
| Yes | 4.4 (3.8–5.1) | 4.3 (3.7–4.9) | 20.8 (19.5–22.0) | 40.3 (38.7–41.9) | 30.2 (28.7–31.6) |
| Labor sector | |||||
| Private | – | 7.0 (6.2–7.9) | 57.9 (56.0–59.8) | 13.8 (12.5–15.1) | 21.2 (19.7–22.8) |
| Public | – | 3.8 (3.3–4.4) | 5.0 (4.3–5.6) | 55.1 (53.5–56.6) | 36.2 (34.6–37.7) |
| No. of jobs | |||||
| One | – | 4.8 (4.3–5.3) | 24.9 (23.8–26.0) | 37.0 (35.8–38.3) | 28.5 (27.3–29.6) |
| Two or more | – | 6.1 (3.7–8.5) | 30.3 (25.9–34.6) | 30.1 (26.2–34.0) | 33.5 (29.4–37.6) |
| Place of residence | |||||
| Rural | 4.2 (2.7–5.7) | 3.7 (2.0–5.4) | 31.2 (27.1–35.3) | 30.8 (27.0–34.6) | 30.1 (26.4–33.7) |
| Semi-urban (peri-urban) | 4.8 (3.4–6.2) | 3.3 (2.2–4.4) | 24.7 (21.7–27.7) | 34.6 (30.9–38.3) | 32.6 (29.2–36.0) |
| Urban | 4.9 (3.6–6.2) | 3.4 (2.4–4.4) | 27.3 (24.4–30.2) | 35.3 (32.1–38.4) | 29.1 (26.2–32.0) |
| Metropolitan | 4.5 (3.8–5.1) | 5.7 (5.1–6.3) | 24.0 (22.7–25.3) | 38.0 (36.6–39.5) | 27.8 (26.5–29.1) |
| Socioeconomic region | |||||
| Poorest | 4.1 (2.8–5.3) | 3.6 (2.5–4.8) | 24.8 (21.9–27.6) | 33.6 (30.7–36.6) | 33.9 (31.0–36.8) |
| 2 | 4.0 (3.0–5.0) | 3.6 (2.5–4.6) | 26.7 (24.2–29.3) | 35.4 (32.7–38.1) | 30.3 (27.8–32.8) |
| 3 | 3.8 (2.6–4.9) | 4.5 (3.1–5.9) | 23.8 (20.6–26.9) | 36.8 (33.5–40.0) | 31.2 (28.0–34.5) |
| 4 | 4.7 (3.4–6.0) | 3.7 (2.8–4.6) | 26.3 (23.8–28.9) | 35.3 (32.5–38.0) | 30.0 (27.3–32.7) |
| 5 | 4.3 (3.1–5.4) | 7.3 (5.8–8.7) | 24.2 (22.1–26.4) | 38.8 (36.1–41.4) | 25.5 (23.2–27.7) |
| Wealthiest | 5.4 (4.4–6.4) | 6.2 (5.2–7.2) | 24.3 (22.2–26.5) | 38.4 (36.0–40.8) | 25.7 (23.8–27.7) |
Estimates considered the design effect of the survey. Data source: National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) 2005–2019
Fig. 2Distribution of nursing professionals according to level of employment precariousness and labor sector. Mexico, 2005–2019. A Employees in the private sector. B Employees in the public sector. Estimates considered the design effect of the survey. Data source: National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) 2005–2019
Regression analysis results for labor sector influence on non-precarious employment. Mexico, 2005–2019
| Underemployed and employed in the health sector | Employed in health sector | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| aOR's and 95% CI | ||||||
| Labor sector | ||||||
| Private | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Public | ||||||
| Adjusted covariates | ||||||
| Survey quarter | ||||||
| Survey year | ||||||
| Labor sector × survey year | ||||||
| Sociodemographics and labor characteristics | ||||||
| Place of residence characteristics | ||||||
| Observations | 18,560 | 18,560 | 18,560 | 12,924 | 12,924 | 12,924 |
| Goodness-of-fit test (Hosmer and Lemeshow) | ||||||
| | 1.11 | 2.05 | 0.98 | 0.83 | 0.58 | 0.74 |
| | 0.36 | 0.03 | 0.45 | 0.59 | 0.82 | 0.67 |
Estimates considered the design effect of the survey
Data source National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) 2005–2019
***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05
Fig. 3Prevalence of non-precarious employment according to labor sector and socioeconomic region. Mexico, 2005–2019. A Among underemployed and employed nurses in the health sector. B Among employed nurses in the health sector. Adjusted percentages after estimating model 3 in Table 2. Estimates took into account the design effect of the survey. Data
source: National Occupation and Employment Survey (ENOE in Spanish) 2005–2019