Satisfaction of Physicians Working in Polish Hospitals—A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician satisfaction is a multidimensional concept associated with numerous factors. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the satisfaction of physicians practicing in hospitals in Poland and to identify factors associated with higher levels of satisfaction. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey of Polish hospitals was conducted between March and June 2018. All doctors working in the hospitals invited to the study were asked to fill in an online survey. Fifteen hospitals were included: seven general, five specialist, and three university ones. The total number of questionnaires analyzed was 1003. The questionnaire included 17 items to measure the level of satisfaction, classified into four dimensions: personal, professional, performance, and inherent. The statistical analyses included: assessment of association between levels of career satisfaction and basic demographic and work-related variables; and multivariable logistic regressions, conducted to determine which variables were associated with higher levels of career satisfaction. The mean level of career satisfaction, on a scale from 1 to 6, was 4.1 (SD = 0.69). Respondents reported high levels of inherent satisfaction: mean = 4.4 (SD = 0.66) and a low personal satisfaction: mean = 3.78 (SD = 0.98). 56.6% of respondents reported being satisfied, but only 8.2% reported a higher level of satisfaction (≥5). The satisfaction of Polish physicians is moderate. Gender, numbers of working hours/week, years of work experience, type of hospital, and stage of professional development were the identified factors associated with higher levels of career satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".