The Citizenship Behaviours of Care Givers: When Meaning and Trust are Crucial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crisis in public finances and growth in the demand for healthcare services are placing increased pressure on hospitals to implement high-involvement work practices (HIWP). Yet, studies on the relationship between these practices and organizational performance are rather scarce in the healthcare sector. In addition, past research has mainly examined the direct relationship between HIWP and organizational performance, leaving unclear the process that leads to this performance. This study aims to fill these knowledge gaps by examining the mediating role played by psychological empowerment (PE) in the relationship between HIWP and organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB), an important predictor of the quality of healthcare delivered. Also, because a collaborative relationship with physicians, based on trust, appears to be crucial for the development of a sense of power among healthcare workers, the moderating effect of trust in physicians on the relationship between HIWP and HP is also explored. Hence, the study tests a model depicting specific relationships between HIWP (autonomy, training, sharing information, recognition) and the cognitions associated with PE (competence, self determination, meaning, impact), these relationships being moderated by trust in physicians. Lastly, the study aims to verify if the cognitions associated with PE, which are proposed to be related to OCB, interact with each other according to a specific sequence. On the basis of a survey conducted among 176 healthcare workers and their immediate supervisors in a hospital located in the province of Quebec, the study shows that the relationship between some aspects of HIWP (autonomy and training) and OCB is a function of meaning and trust in physicians. Also, the cognitions associated with HP appear to be linked with each other according to a particular sequence in which self-determination plays a central role.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".