The Association of Nursing Homes’ Organizational Context With Care Aide Empowerment: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Organizational context is thought to influence whether care aides feel empowered, but we lack empirical evidence in the nursing home sector. Our objective was to examine the association of features of nursing homes' unit organizational context with care aides' psychological empowerment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed survey data from 3765 care aides in 91 Western Canadian nursing homes. Random-intercept mixed-effects regressions were used to examine the associations between nursing home unit organizational context and care aides' psychological empowerment, controlling for care aide, care unit, and nursing home covariates. RESULTS: Organizational (IVs) culture, social capital, and care aides' perceptions of sufficient time to do their work were positively associated with all four components of psychological empowerment (DVs): competence (0.17 [0.13, 0.21] for culture, 0.18 [0.14, 0.21] for social capital, 0.03 [0.01, 0.05] for time), meaning (0.21 [0.18, 0.25] for culture, 0.19 [0.16, 0.23] for social capital, 0.03 [0.01, 0.05 for time), self-determination (0.38 [0.33, 0.44] for culture, 0.17 [0.12, 0.21] for social capital, 0.08 [0.05, 0.11] for time), and impact (0.26 [0.21, 0.31] for culture, 0.23 [0.19, 0.28] for social capital, 0.04 [0.01, 0.07] for time). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: In this study, modifiable elements of organizational context (i.e., culture, social capital, and time) were positively associated with care aides' psychological empowerment. Future interventions might usefully target these modifiable elements of unit level context in the interest of assessing their effects on staff work attitudes and outcomes, including the quality of resident care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".