Does an alignment of employment policies and individual preferences affect intention to stay in the profession? Evidence from Canadian Midwives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines whether alignment of actual and preferred employment policies, including compensation method, employment status, and work schedule, affect midwives' intention to stay in the profession. The study further investigates the moderating effect of financial-rewards satisfaction and compares midwives' policy preferences in urban/rural practices. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data from 549 midwives across Canada were analysed through descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and hierarchical linear regressions. Further regression analysis separated data for urban/rural practicing midwives. RESULTS: Three-quarters of the respondents are paid through a billable-course-of-care, while only one-third prefer this model. Another one-third prefer a combination of salary and billable-course-of-care. More than three-quarters of the respondents are independent contractors, but half prefer other forms of employee status. Lastly, half prefer a part-time work schedule, while others prefer full-time. Alignment of actual and preferred employment policies significantly explains midwives' intention to stay in the profession. Intentions to stay in the profession for urban midwives is significantly affected by the alignment of actual and preferred compensation methods, but not for rural ones. Both urban and rural midwives report similar preferences for employment status and work schedule policies. Furthermore, satisfaction with financial rewards is significantly associated with their intention to stay. CONCLUSION: Policymakers can positively influence midwives' intention to stay in the profession by facilitating alignment of their actual and preferred employment policies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".