| Literature DB >> 36078526 |
Na Li1, Lichuan Zhang2, Xuejing Li3, Qian Lu2.
Abstract
Unique environment, coupled with overload, low job control, and high risk might put operating room (OR) nurses in a state of high job strain, which might have negative influences on burnout and organizational commitment. Based on the Job Demand-Control-Support model and previous studies, we hypothesized that the relationship between job strain (determined by job demand and control) and organizational commitment could be mediated by burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization), the effect of job strain on burnout and organizational commitment could be moderated by social support. To verify the hypothesis, a quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted, 509 OR nurses from 30 tertiary hospitals in Beijing were recruited. Multiple-group path analysis was used to test the moderated role of social support. Propensity score matching was applied to match job strain in different groups. Our research found that in the low social support group, job strain was not related to organizational commitment, while in the high social support group, depersonalization was not related to organizational commitment. Furthermore, nurses in the low social support group were more likely to have depersonalization under job strain compared to the high social support group. Social support should be provided to alleviate the negative impact of job strain.Entities:
Keywords: burnout; job strain; moderated role; nursing; operating room; organizational commitment; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078526 PMCID: PMC9518378 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Hypothetical model.
Descriptions and correlations of the main variables (n = 509).
| Variable |
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job demand | 37.26 | 4.65 | 24–48 | |||||
| Job control | 60.64 | 8.63 | 30–94 | |||||
| Social support | 23.96 | 4.13 | 13–32 | |||||
| 1. Job strain (Demand/control ratio) | 1.26 | 0.27 | 0.57–2.71 | 1.000 | ||||
| 2. Emotional exhaustion | 3.32 | 3.40 | 1.83 | 0–6 | 0.514 *** | 1.000 | ||
| 3. Depersonalization | 1.98 | 1.25 | 1.88 | 0–6 | 0.361 *** | 0.702 *** | 1.000 | |
| 4. Organizational commitment | 3.67 | 0.86 | 1–5 | −0.360 *** | −0.444 *** | −0.565 *** | 1.000 |
Note: *** p < 0.001 (2-tails).
Figure 2Final model (n = 509, R2 = 0.348). ** p < 0.01 (2-tails).
Figure 3Low social support group (n = 99, R2 = 0.234). ** p < 0.01 (2-tails); dotted line means unsignificant coefficients.
Figure 4High social support group (n = 99, R2 = 0.193). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 (2-tails); dotted line means unsignificant coefficients.
The results of simultaneous analysis of several groups.
| Model |
|
|
| χ2/ | GFI | AGFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mall ( | 5.346 | 0.069 | 2 | 2.678 | 0.992 | 0.974 | 0.995 | 0.057 |
| Mhigh ( | 1.574 | 0.455 | 2 | 0.787 | 1.000 | 0.960 | 1.000 | <0.001 |
| Mlow ( | 2.496 | 0.287 | 2 | 1.248 | 0.988 | 0.939 | 0.994 | 0.05 |
| M1 | 4.070 | 0.397 | 4 | 1.017 | 0.990 | 0.949 | 0.999 | 0.009 |
| M2 | 18.489 | 0.018 | 8 | 2.311 | 0.958 | 0.894 | 0.915 | 0.082 |
| M3 | 18.490 | 0.030 | 9 | 2.054 | 0.958 | 0.906 | 0.923 | 0.073 |
| M4 | 25.830 | 0.011 | 12 | 2.152 | 0.943 | 0.904 | 0.888 | 0.077 |
M1 = Unconstrained; M2 = Structural weights; M3 = Structural covariances; M4 = Structural residuals; Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit indexes; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Comparison of nested model.
| Model |
|
|
| NFI | IFI | RFI | TLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural weights constrained | 4 | 14.419 | 0.006 | 0.107 | 0.110 | 0.115 | 0.126 |
| Structural covariances constrained | 5 | 14.420 | 0.013 | 0.107 | 0.110 | 0.092 | 0.101 |
| Structural residuals constrained | 8 | 21.760 | 0.005 | 0.161 | 0.166 | 0.101 | 0.110 |
Note: NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RFI = relative fit index; TLI = Tacker-Lewis index.
Model Effects.
| Directed Effects | Indirected Effects | All Effects | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95% |
| 95% |
| 95% | ||
| Job strain | All | 0.514 | 0.453~0.571 ** | - | - | 0.514 | 0.453~0.571 ** |
| High group | 0.240 | 0.013~0.456 * | - | - | 0.240 | 0.013~0.456 * | |
| Low group | 0.309 | 0.138~0.470 ** | - | - | 0.309 | 0.138~0.470 ** | |
| Job strain | All | - | - | 0.361 | 0.308~0.411 ** | 0.361 | 0.308~0.411 ** |
| High group | - | - | 0.126 | 0.005~0.265 * | 0.126 | 0.005~0.265 * | |
| Low group | - | - | 0.209 | 0.090~0.320 ** | 0.209 | 0.090~0.320 ** | |
| Job strain | All | −0.180 | −0.264~−0.084 ** | −0.181 | −0.223~−0.143 ** | −0.361 | −0.434~−0.273 ** |
| High group | −0.214 | −0.404~−0.021 * | −0.020 | −0.061~0.003 | −0.234 | −0.414~−0.052 * | |
| Low group | −0.122 | −0.297~0.046 | −0.171 | −0.136~−0.024 ** | −0.194 | −0.360~0.024 * | |
| Emotional exhaustion | All | 0.702 | 0.659~0.741 ** | - | - | 0.702 | 0.659~0.741 ** |
| High group | 0.524 | 0.345~0.656 ** | - | - | 0.524 | 0.345~0.656 ** | |
| Low group | 0.677 | 0.564~0.772 ** | - | - | 0.677 | 0.564~0.772 ** | |
| Emotional exhaustion | All | - | - | −0.351 | −0.412~−0.290 ** | −0.351 | −0.412~−0.290 ** |
| High group | - | - | −0.083 | −0.190~0.013 | −0.083 | −0.190~0.013 | |
| Low group | - | - | −0.231 | −0.355~−0.105 ** | −0.231 | −0.355~−0.105 ** | |
| Depersonalization | All | −0.500 | −0.576~−0.420 ** | - | - | −0.500 | −0.576~−0.420 ** |
| High group | −0.159 | −0.353~0.023 | - | - | −0.159 | −0.353~0.023 | |
| Low group | −0.341 | −0.503~−0.166 ** | - | - | −0.341 | −0.503~−0.166 ** | |
Note: * p < 0.05 (2-tails); ** p < 0.01 (2-tails).