Hospital Supervisory Staff’s Perceptions Regarding the Effectiveness of Financial Management in University Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial management helps hospital managers make rational financial and administrative decisions and choose effective methods for spending money. Therefore, this study aims to examine hospital supervisory staff’s perceptions regarding the effectiveness of financial management in hospitals, with a focus on university hospitals in Jordan. This study used a quantitative method and employed a cross-sectional design to achieve the study aims. The study was conducted in teaching hospitals located in different areas of Jordan, and the study participants consisted of staff members who have supervisory duties. A questionnaire was developed in order to examine the effectiveness of financial management in hospitals, as perceived by hospital managers. The sample size was 172 participants. The results showed that university hospitals in Jordan have effective financial management based on the supervisory staff's perceptions. Both budget allocation and human resources domains were effective. However, the results for the process and procedures domain were moderate. The results also showed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores according to gender (P-value= 0.66), age groups (P-value= 0.48), education level (P-value= 0.38), experience (P-value= 0.28), and position (P-value= 0.13). Hospital managers should be aware of issues related to processes and procedures and budget allocations that are likely to affect financial management. Hospital managers need to draw more attention to the importance of implementation of financial management in order to enable their hospitals to operate in a financially effective and efficient manner.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".