Job Satisfaction and its Related Factors in Midwives Working in the Health Services System in Iran: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & aim: Job satisfaction of midwives plays an important role in the efficiency and performance of health centers and the quality of midwifery services. This study reviewed job satisfaction and its related factors among midwives working in health systems in Iran.Methods: In this systematic review, the databases of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Google Scholar and Magiran, were searched between 2000 and 2021 using keywords of midwife, job satisfaction, occupational stress, and Iran. The research steps were based on PRISMA. For quality assessment, the articles were evaluated according to the inclusion criteria by two researchers with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: A total of 23 articles including 3,352 midwives working in the health and medical centers were reviewed. The level of job satisfaction was moderate, and the job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals was lower than that of those working in health centers. The highest level of satisfaction was related to the job positions and relationships with colleagues, and the lowest level was in relation to the salary and job benefits. Marital status, age, income, salary, organizational position, education, employment status, interest in the field of education, and workplace had a relationship with increasing job satisfaction. Tensions in the workplace environment was associated with decreasing job satisfaction.Conclusion: It is necessary to provide conditions to improve job satisfaction of midwives in order to identify and removing barriers and improving professional belonging to promote occupational health and optimize the quality of providing midwifery services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".