Striking a Balance between Work and Play: The Effects of Work-life Interference and Burnout on Faculty Turnover Intentions and Career Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions between work and personal life are important for ensuring well-being especially during COVID-19 where the lines between work and home are blurred. Work-life interference/imbalance can result in work-related burnout, which has been shown to have negative effects on faculty members’ physical and psychological health. Although our understanding of burnout has advanced considerably in recent years, little is known about the effects of burnout on nursing faculty turnover intentions and career satisfaction. Thus, this study aimed to test a hypothesized model examining the effects of work-life inference on nursing faculty burnout (emotional exhaustion and cynicism), turnover intentions and ultimately, career satisfaction. A predictive cross-sectional design was used. An online national survey of nursing faculty members was administered throughout Canada in Summer 2021. Nursing faculty who held full-time or part-time positions in Canadian academic settings were invited via email to participate in the study. Data was collected from an anonymous survey housed on Qualtrics. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates were computed. The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling. Data suggest that work-life interference significantly increase burnout which contribute to both higher turnover intentions and lower career satisfaction. Turnover intentions in turn was negatively associated with career satisfaction. The findings add to the growing body of literature linking burnout to turnover and dissatisfaction, highlighting key antecedents and/or drivers of burnout among nurse academics. These results provide suggestions for suitable areas for the development of interventions and policies within the organizational structure to reduce the risk of burnout during and post-COVID-19 and improve faculty retention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".