Factors Influencing Nurses’ Decisions to Leave or Remain in the Home and Community Care Sector During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Home and community care (HCC) nurses experienced increased occupational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic including increased workloads, job stressors and occupational risks like virus exposure. The objective was to elucidate what factors influenced nurses’ decisions to stay in their role, take a temporary leave, or exit HCC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A secondary analysis of data collected using a cross-sectional online open survey distributed among HCC Registered Practical Nurses across Ontario between June and September 2022 was conducted. The factors contributing to nurses’ decision to remain in HCC, temporarily leave, or exit the sector were evaluated using multinomial logistic regression (p < 0.05). Results: Of the 664 participants, 54% (n=357) stayed in the HCC sector, 30% (n=199) temporarily left, and 16% (n=108) exited the sector. Nurses with greater years of experience working in HCC and those who avoided infection were more likely to stay in their role in HCC, which may reflect strong relationships with long-term clients, opportunity and accumulated experience to increase income, and maintained good health. Nurses with higher levels of emotional intelligence were more likely to take leaves and exit HCC, suggesting that stepping away may have been a strategy to safeguard themselves. Conclusions: HCC leadership should prioritize the development of solutions to support nurses in the HCC workforce, including those with fewer years’ experience. This may promote nurses’ participation in the sector, particularly during times of heightened occupational challenges and crises like COVID-19.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".