Workaholism, presenteeism, work–family conflicts and personal and work outcomes: Testing a moderated mediation model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: While research suggests that nurses who experience work-family conflicts (WFC) are less satisfied and perform less well, these negative outcomes may be more important for some nurses. This study proposes a mediated moderation model wherein the interaction between two individual characteristics, workaholism and presenteeism, relates to family life satisfaction and work performance with WFC mediating these relationships. BACKGROUND: Because a limited number of nursing studies have examined the potential outcomes of workaholism and presenteeism, we extend past research to address the question of how workaholism and presenteeism affect nurses' functioning. DESIGN: We used a cross-sectional questionnaire survey design to test our hypotheses. STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional research were followed in designing and reporting this study. METHODS: A total of 419 nurses completed measures of workaholism, presenteeism, WFC, family life satisfaction and work performance. RESULTS: Results revealed that the relationships between workaholism and outcomes (family life satisfaction and work performance) through WFC were stronger among nurses characterised by high levels of presenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: These results revealed that high presenteeism may exacerbate the negative relationships of workaholism to family life satisfaction and work performance through WFC. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Healthcare organisations and managers should consider addressing work environment factors in their efforts to reduce the negative outcomes (e.g., low family satisfaction and work performance) of nurses' workaholism, presenteeism and WFC.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".