An exploratory study of workplace supports among Canadian health care employees.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent Canadian study conducted by Duxbury and Higgins (2002) revealed employees struggling to meet work and family responsibilities are costing businesses 3 billion dollars a year in lost time. Simultaneously, the stress associated with balancing work and family life is costing the health care system 425 million dollars a year due to health related problems. In spite of increasing attention being directed to the problem of work-family conflict there is a dearth of research linking organizational support practices to actual outcomes related to work-family conflict. The purpose of this study was to identify how employees' perceptions of organizational and supervisor support, and utilization of organizational supports influenced work-family conflict, sense of control, general well-being, propensity to leave one's place of employment, and absenteeism. A cross-sectional descriptive correlational survey was used that incorporated structured and open-ended questions. The convenience sample of 92 participants was drawn from a mid-size public health agency with 150 employees, that serves a community of 350,000 people. Flexible work hours, family emergency days off, unpaid leave of absence, personal days with pay, time off in lieu of overtime, short-term family/personal leave and employee assistance program were the supports most widely used by the study participants. Use of flexible work hours was significantly related to reports of greater general well being, while family emergency days off was significantly related to greater sense of control and higher work-family conflict. Bivariate analyses revealed both supervisor support and organizational support were significantly related to propensity to leave however multivariate analyses revealed only organizational support was significantly related to the employee's propensity to leave. Utilization of support and work-family conflict were found to be significantly related to employees' absenteeism. These findings suggest employees who are experiencing work-family conflict benefit from the availability of workplace supports while employers benefit from the decreased propensity to leave associated with supportive workplaces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".