Financial Literacy and Leadership Skills Among Healthcare Professionals in Greece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare professionals require comparable knowledge and abilities in hospital financial administration. In addition, many physicians are not equipped to manage the leadership roles that healthcare systems require, namely the capacity to express a vision, convey it to others, garner willing support for it, and enable others to be leaders in return. Previous studies have demonstrated that physicians often lack financial literacy, while a recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that healthcare professionals lack adequate financial literacy, although top healthcare practitioners and executive nurse leaders are encouraged to develop knowledge and abilities outside of their clinical specialty. The need for medical practitioners to receive training and experience in medical leadership has also been discussed in earlier studies. In Greece, evidence regarding the financial literacy levels and leadership skills among healthcare professionals is lacking, although physicians and nurses are required to obtain managerial and administrative roles as they progress in their positions. Our objective was to assess healthcare professionals’ levels of financial literacy and investigate the relationship between financial literacy and leadership skills in Greece. We conducted a prospective, multi-centered, question-based survey among healthcare professionals in several institutions in Northern Greece. Participants were asked to fill out basic demographic questions, the OECD/INFE Toolkit for Measuring Financial Literacy and Financial Inclusion 2022, and the Leadership Skills questionnaire, translated into Greek. The factorability of the questionnaires was examined with factor analysis, while the internal consistency was examined with Cronbach’s alpha. A linear correlation of leadership scores with financial literacy scores was performed with the Spearman rho, and multivariate regression analysis examined the correlation of the leadership score with financial literacy scores, adjusted for the type of task, education, status, gender, and age. The overall financial literacy score for all healthcare professionals was 69.14 ± 13.25%, which was higher compared to the average for the Greek population. Male healthcare professionals with administrative tasks had significantly higher overall financial literacy and digital financial literacy scores than females, or professionals without administrative tasks, as well as higher scores in all areas of leadership. Physicians had significantly higher overall financial literacy scores than nurses and significantly lower digital financial behavior and digital finance trend scores. Still, physicians scored significantly lower than nurses in all areas of leadership skills. There was a strong correlation between overall financial and digital financial literacy scores with leadership skills scores. Future research is warranted to explore how formal financial and leadership education included in the training programs of healthcare professionals would empower physicians by enabling them to make proactive decisions regarding their financial and managerial destiny.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".