MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123895905

Predictors of the decision to retire among nurses in Spain

2013· article· en· W3123895905 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald J. Burke, Simón L. Dolan, Lisa Fıksenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageWorkforceNursingWork (physics)BurnoutPsychologyRetirement ageNursing shortagePopulationPopulation ageingMedicineBusinessNurse educationEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Nurses typically retire in their late 50s and since nursing shortages exist in most countries understanding nursing staff decisions to retire might open up possibilities of encouraging and supporting them to remain in the workforce longer. Objective: This study examines potential predictors of retirement intentions amongst nurses working in Spain. Population: All registered nurses in Spain with 50 years old or more. Methods: Survey. Data were collected with the collaboration of the regional nursing associations in Spain using anonymous online questionnaires employed to nursing staff (n=497) for those  who are 50 years or older. Results: Nurses indicated their interest in retiring, their planning for retirement, and their expectations for retiring. Results show that retirement intentions were higher in nursing staff that were older, experienced higher levels of burnout, indicated poorer levels of self-reported health, and reported greater job demands and more negative work attitudes (less affective commitment, job involvement, work engagement). The majority of these were “push” factors which are related to dissatisfaction in the workplace. Conclusion: Organizations can and should create age-friendly workplaces enabling them to cope with the nursing shortage and workplaces can be changed to better accommodate the needs  and expectations of older employees.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of nursingSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207