MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620849232 · doi:10.5430/jha.v6n3p58

Intention to leave among health care professionals: The importance of working conditions and social capital

2017· article· en· W2620849232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcus Strömgren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsSocial capitalWorkloadHealth carePsychologyPaceSick leaveSample (material)BusinessTurnoverCapital (architecture)Work (physics)Demographic economicsNursingMedicineLabour economicsEconomicsManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospitals in Sweden are redesigning their care processes to increase efficiency. However, related to these changes, there is a risk of increased staff intention to leave and turnover due to increased workload and work pace. The literature on work engagement and job demands and resources suggests that specific job resources can buffer negative effects; i.e., intention to leave because of job demands. Social capital is suggested to have the potential to be a resource associated with staff intention to leave. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between social capital and intention to leave and to test if social capital moderates the relationship between job demands and intention to leave. A sample of five hospitals working under conditions of improvements of care processes were studied using a questionnaire administered to the healthcare clinicians (n = 849). High levels of social capital were associated with low levels of intention to leave. However, the moderating effect of social capital was not confirmed. Intention to leave among occupational groups was influenced differently by social capital, other job resources, and job demands.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207