Quality of work life in primary care of nursing professionals in public health clinics in Tampico, Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Having a high Quality of Work Life (QWL) has a positive influence in care quality, however, in Mexico, little is known about QWL and even less in health care professionals and primary care. This study aims to describe strengths and areas of improvements in QWL in nursing professionals who work in primary care of Jurisdiction No. 2 in Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico.Methods: Cross-sectional analytical study. The CVT-GOHISALO instrument was applied, which measures QWL.Results: The study sample was composed by 67 women (95.7%) and 3 men (4.3%). The average age was 39 years old, ranging from 23 to 69 years old. A 57.1% reported living with a partner; 54% had a full time job; and 78.6% had only one job. The results of the present study showed that dissatisfaction can be found in nursing professional’s QWL in public health clinics in all dimensions. Those dimensions with the greatest dissatisfaction were Inclusion in the working place, Personal development and Well-being achieved through work. The dimensions with less dissatisfaction were Institutional support, Free-time management, Work satisfaction, Safety at work.Conclusions: This study is the first attempt to determine the QWL of nursing professionals of primary care clinics in Tampico, Tamaulipas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".