A profile of Australian occupational therapy academic workforce job satisfaction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: There has been an increase in the number of Australian occupational therapy education programmes and student enrolment numbers in existing programmes, whereas there is a perceived current and predicted future workforce shortage of qualified university academics. The aim of the study was to map the current Australian occupational therapy academic workforce and investigate the group's job satisfaction. METHODS: The research was a cross-sectional online survey of Australian occupational therapy academics employed part-time or full-time in fixed or ongoing positions. The survey included the Job Satisfaction Survey. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Spearman rho correlations, and linear and multi-linear regressions. RESULTS: Responses were received from 120 participants who met inclusion criteria, with 89% of the sample being women, 83% employed in ongoing positions and 61% employed full-time. Over half had a PhD or professional doctorate and similarly, over half were employed in lecturer or level B positions. One quarter of respondents were in teaching-only positions and 58% were in combined teaching and research positions. Nearly half were over 46 years of age. Respondents reported that they were satisfied with supervision, the nature of the work, and co-workers; however, were dissatisfied with operating conditions and were ambivalent about pay, contingent rewards, opportunities for promotion, communication, and fringe benefits. Most participants were motivated by teaching students but reported unrealistic workload requirements as their greatest challenge. CONCLUSION: The Australian occupational therapy academic workforce is relatively stable with most in ongoing positions; however, there are fewer in senior positions. The majority of respondents were in lecturer or level B positions, with lowest levels of satisfaction, particularly those who had been at this level longer. Workload expectations and lack of opportunities for promotion contributed to marked job dissatisfaction. Workforce planning, including recruitment and retention strategies, is needed to address predicted increased demands.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».