MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Turnover and vacancy rates for registered nurses

2008· article· en· W2069052446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent V. Rondeau, Eric S. Williams, Terry H. Wagar

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoverEconomic shortageHealth careDifferential (mechanical device)BusinessQuality (philosophy)Ordinary least squaresDemographic economicsLabour economicsNursingActuarial scienceEconomicsMedicineEconomic growthManagementEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Turnover of nursing staff is a significant issue affecting health care cost, quality, and access. In recent years, a worldwide shortage of skilled nurses has resulted in sharply higher vacancy rates for registered nurses in many health care organizations. Much research has focused on the individual, group, and organizational determinants of turnover. Labor market factors have also been suggested as important contributors to turnover and vacancy rates but have received limited attention by scholars. PURPOSE: This study proposes and tests a conceptual model showing the relationships of organization-market fit and three local labor market factors with organizational turnover and vacancy rates. METHODS: The model is tested using ordinary least squares regression with data collected from 713 Canadian hospitals and nursing homes. RESULTS: Results suggest that, although modest in their impact, labor market and the organization-market fit factors do make significant yet differential contributions to turnover and vacancy rates for registered nurses. IMPLICATIONS: Knowledge of labor market factors can substantially shape an effective campaign to recruit and retain nurses. This is particularly true for employers who are perceived to be "employers-of-choice."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ReviewSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207