MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735817647 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n9p81

Work-Life Balance among Teaching Hospital Nurses in Malaysia

2017· article· en· W2735817647 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Said Nurumal, Sachiko Makabe, Farah Ilyani Che Jamaludin, Hairil Fahmi Mohd Yusof, Khin Thandar Aung, Yanika Kowitlawakul

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadWork–life balanceBalance (ability)Work (physics)NursingQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyJob satisfactionQuality of working lifeEnthusiasmMedicineSocial psychologyPhysical therapyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme workload and poor working environment have a negative impact on the emotional and physical statuses among nurses. The study has contributed to evaluate work-life balance and its related factors among teaching hospital nurses. It was aimed to examine the work-life balance and its related factors among teaching hospital nurses. A cross-sectional study using a universal sampling technique was conducted. 1002 nurses were included from the Teaching hospital of Klang Valley, Malaysia. The instrument was adapted from NIOSH Generic Job Stress Questionnaire and QoL questionnaire from WHO, and it was used to measure the quality of work-life balance. Non-work activities, job requirement, supervisor support, job satisfaction, manageability, social and environmental variables have independently influenced work-life balance among nurses. Furthermore, quality of life variables has positively influenced the work-life balance (P<0.050). Work life balance and organizational commitment can have a positive relationship. Whereas, Nurses working in fixed shifts were observed with greater work-life balance as compared to the nurses working in multiple shifts. A friendly environment in the professional sector plays a major role for developing motivation and enthusiasm among workers.

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)0.003
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207