The impact of COVID-19 on nurses’ job satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The global healthcare landscape was profoundly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic placing nurses squarely at the heart of this emergency. This review aimed to identify the factors correlated with nurses' job satisfaction, the impact of their job satisfaction on both themselves and their patients, and to explore strategies that might have counteracted their job dissatisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence was used in this review. The electronic databases of CINAHL, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Academic Search Complete were searched between January 2020 to February 2023. Results: The literature review identified 23 studies from 20 countries on nurses' job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pooled prevalence of 69.6% of nurses were satisfied with personal, environmental, and psychological factors influencing their job satisfaction. Job satisfaction improved psychological wellbeing and quality of life, while dissatisfaction was linked to turnover and mental health issues. Conclusion: This systematic review elucidates key factors impacting nurses' job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, its effects on healthcare provision, and the potential countermeasures for job dissatisfaction. Core influences include working conditions, staff relationships, and career opportunities. High job satisfaction correlates with improved patient care, reduced burnout, and greater staff retention. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023405947, the review title has been registered in PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42023405947.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".