What do nurses and midwives value about their jobs? Results from a discrete choice experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine nurses' and midwives' preferences for the characteristics of their jobs. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment of 990 nurses and midwives administered as part of a survey of nurses and midwives in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: Autonomy, working hours, and processes to deal with violence and bullying were valued most highly. Nurses and midwives would be willing to forgo 19% and 16% of their annual income for adequate autonomy and adequate processes to deal with violence and bullying, compared to poor autonomy and poor processes for violence and bullying. They would need to be paid an additional 24% to increase their working hours by 10% ($73 per hour). Job characteristics that were less important were shift work, nurse to patient ratios, and public or private sector work. CONCLUSIONS: Policies to improve retention and job satisfaction of nurses and midwives should initially focus on autonomy, processes to deal with violence and bullying, and reasonable working hours. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of these different policies is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".