Relationships Between Managerial and Organizational Practices, Psychological Health at Work, and Quality of Care in Pediatric Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Psychological health at work for care providers is an important issue, because they are directly involved in quality of patient care. Managerial and organizational determinants have been found to be indicators of psychological health at work. The main objective of this study was to explore the relationships between the psychological health at work of pediatric oncology care workers with managerial and organizational determinants and with quality of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed regression analysis between psychological health at work (quality of work life [QWL], job satisfaction, and so on), managerial determinants (transformational leadership, perceived autonomy support), organizational determinants (organizational support, organizational justice, and participatory approach), and perceived quality of care. RESULTS: Participants were 510 health care professionals working in French pediatric oncology centers. No significant differences in the psychological health at work of the participants were found based on age, sex, length of employment, or professional discipline. In simple regression, significant associations were found between psychological health at work with all managerial and organizational determinants. In multiple regression, a significant link was found between QWL and perceived organizational support (β = .21; P < .001), organizational justice (β = .20, P < .001), and overall participatory approach (β = .10; P < .02). Job satisfaction was also related to perceived organizational support (β = .16; P < .01). Finally, perceived quality of care was linked to QWL (β = .15; P < .01) and job satisfaction (β = .30; P < .001). CONCLUSION: These results emphasize the importance of the role of managers and the organization in psychological health at work of health care providers and also in the quality of patient care
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".