Work-life Balance Practices and Workplace Attitudes in Private Hospitals in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this research is to contribute to the body of literature revolving around work-life balance (WLB) and its causal relationship with desired workplace outcomes. Particularly, the interest was directed towards investigating the linkage between WLB practices and workplace attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment along with the mediation effect of work-life conflict. The research also sought to differentiate between formal and informal WLB practices in order to examine the more influential of the two. This research was applied to the context of private hospitals in Jordan targeting medical-staff. With 450 questionnaires randomly distributed to medical-staff working in private hospitals in Jordan, 363 responses were obtained and analyzed yielding a response rate of 81 percent. Fitness-of-measure tests (reliability and validity) were first carried out to assess the suitability and generalizability of the obtained sample. Subsequently, data was analyzed and the research hypotheses were tested for possibility of rejection. Results revealed the rejection of all hypotheses implying a statistically significant relationship between WLB practices and workplace attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with the former being more affected by the relationship than the latter. The findings also confirmed the mediation effect of work-life conflict. Furthermore, informal WLB practices were found to be superior to formal practices in terms of attaining desirable organizational outcomes. Finally, the research disclosed the fact that physicians—of all the segments under study—had the most conflict between work and life responsibilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".