Shining a Light: Examining Similarities and Differences in the Work Psychology of Health Support Workers Employed in Long-Term Care and Home and Community Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health Support Workers (HSWs) provide up to 80% of care to residents and clients in the long-term care (LTC) and home and community care (HCC) sectors but have received little research attention compared with the regulated professions. The authors explore similarities and differences in the work psychology of HSWs employed in LTC and HCC settings. Data were collected via survey from 276 LTC and 184 HCC HSWs. Descriptive statistics and path analyses were conducted. HSWs in LTC and HCC settings have significant, positive associations between organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward the organization (OCB-Os) and psychological empowerment, as well as intention to stay (ITS) and job satisfaction. For LTC sector HSWs, there are significant relationships between OCB-Os and quality of work life (QWL), ITS and work engagement, and individual performance and both job satisfaction and QWL. For the HCC sector, OCB-Os and ITS are significantly and directly related to organizational commitment. This study has implications for organizations interested in developing targeted interventions to improve the retention of HSWs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".