MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2041935893 · doi:10.1108/ebhrm-02-2013-0001

Part-time versus full-time work: an empirical evidence-based case of nurses in Spain

2014· article· en· W2041935893 sur OpenAlexaff
Ronald J. Burke, Simón L. Dolan, Lisa Fıksenbaum

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-based HRM a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueWorkplace Health and Well-being
Établissements canadiensYork University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFull-timePsychologyAbsenteeismNursingContext (archaeology)Work engagementSpouseWork (physics)Applied psychologyMedicineSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons given by nurses for working part-time; compare the work experiences, satisfactions, and psychological well-being of nursing staff working full-time vs part-time; and identify possible antecedents and sources of leverage to encourage part-time nurses to work full-time. Design/methodology/approach – An online survey was developed, pre-tested and validated, and sent to the regional associations of nurses in Spain for distribution to their members. Data collection involved a cross-sectional design. A total of 2,094 valid questionnaires were completed online. The majority of responding nurses were located in Catalunya and Gipuzkoa. Respondents were given 15 reasons and asked to indicate the extent to which each played a role in their decision to work part-time. Job context and job content scales bearing multi items reliable measures were also employed. All scales met the criteria of reliability. Findings – Nurses working full-time included more males, were older, had longer nursing experience (both job and unit tenure), reported higher levels of both job resources (autonomy, self-development opportunities), higher levels of positive work attitudes (job involvement, affective commitment, work engagement), more medication use, and a higher intention to quit. Full-time and part-time nursing staff were similar on marital status, levels of social support (supervisor, co-worker, spouse, and family), self-reported absenteeism, levels of burnout, levels of psychological well-being (psychosomatic symptoms, self-reported health), and potential accident propensity. Some of the more concrete results include: first, reasons for working part-time were varied with some being voluntary (going to school) and others involuntary (poor health). Second, different clusters of individuals likely exist (e.g. students, caretakers, transitioning to retirement or other career options). Third, part-time nursing staff tended to report a more negative workplace (less autonomy, fewer opportunities for self-development) and less favorable work attitudes (less engagement, job involvement, and affective commitment) than their full-time counterparts. Research limitations/implications – First, all data were collected using self-report questionnaires, raising the possibility of response set tendencies. Second, all data were collected at one point in time, making it difficult to determine cause-effect relationships. Third, although the sample was very large, it was not possible to determine its representativeness or a response rate given the data collection procedure employed. Fourth, the large sample size resulted in relatively small mean differences reaching levels of statistical significance. Fifth, many of the nurse and work/organizational outcomes were themselves significantly correlated inflating the number of statistically significant relationships reported. Finally, it is not clear to what extent the findings apply to Spain only. Practical implications – Health care organizations interested in encouraging and supporting part-time nursing staff to consider working full-time may have some sources of leverage. Part-time nursing staff indicated generally lower levels of commitment involvement and engagement compared to their full-time colleagues. Part-time nursing staff in this study reported lower levels of job resources, such as autonomy and self-development opportunities. Increasing nursing staff input into decision making, increasing levels of nursing staff empowerment, increasing supervisory development that in supporting and respecting the nursing staff contributions, reducing levels of workplace incivility, and improving nursing work team functioning would make the work experiences of part-time nursing staff more meaningful and satisfying. In addition, offering more flexible work schedules and tackling the stereotype associated with working only part-time would also address factors associated with working part-time. A more long-term strategy would involve enhancing both the psychological and physical health of nursing staff through the introduction of a corporate wellness initiative. Increasing the work ability of nursing staff by improving their psychological and physical well-being addresses a common factor in the part-time work decision. Social implications – There is a call in the paper for Spanish authorities to consider implementing the “Magnet hospital program” which is one model that has been shown to improve nurse and patient outcomes and is one solution to the shortage of hospital nurses in attracting them to work on a full-time basis. The process of Magnet recognition involves implementing 14 evidence-based standards. Originality/value – Experts claim that the part-time phenomenon is a growing trend and is there to stay. The authors still do not know sufficiently about the HR implications for having a large workforce of part-time employees. In this paper, a tentative attempt was made to better understand this phenomenon, especially when there is a shortage of qualified nurses in the health sector. Several promising research directions follow from this investigation. First, nurses working part-time need to be polled to identify factors that would encourage and support them should they desire to change to full-time work. Second, the authors learn more about the relatively low levels of involvement, commitment, and engagement of part-time nurses, a phenomenon that most organizations wish to minimize.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,601
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,173
Tête enseignante GPT0,466
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations20
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-based HRM a Global Forum for Empirical ScholarshipMême sujetWorkplace Health and Well-beingTravaux en français237 207