Socioeconomic Factors Related to Job Satisfaction among Formal Care Workers in Nursing Homes for Older Dependent Adults
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Participants
2.2. Variables
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Variables Included in the Multiple Regression
Variable | Categories | Dichotomous Creation | New Name |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Female Male | - | - |
Level of Education | No completed studies Basic education Primary Education Vocational training Grade 1 Vocational training Grade 2 Higher secondary Lower university degree Higher university degree Master’s degree/PhD | - | - |
Age | 16–25 26–40 41–55 >55 | - | - |
Marital status | Single Married/Living together Divorced Widowed | Married/Living together (1) Rest (0) | With or without partner |
Size municipality of residence | <500 500–1000 1000–3000 3000–5000 5000–10,000 10,000–20,000 >20,000 | - | - |
Position | Nursing home duties Psychology/Social work Care aides Health care Maintenance Management/Administration Leisure | Psychology/Social work, Care aides, Health care (1) = Social and health care Rest (0) = Non social and health care | Social and health care worker or not |
Working day | Shifts Full day Split shift Part-time As needs require FlexibleOn call | Shifts (1) Non shifts (0) | Shift work or not |
Type of contract | Temporary Permanent | - | - |
Level of responsibility | Employee Supervisor Middle management Senior management | - | - |
Length of service | <1 year 1–3 years 3–5 years 5–10 years >10 years | - | - |
Distance from home to workplace | <1 km 1–5 km 5–20 km 20–50 km >50 km | - | - |
Has received previous training | No Yes | - | - |
The company provides training | No Yes | - | - |
Length of training | <10 h 10–20 h 20–50 h >50 h | <10 h (1) ≥10 h (0) | <10 h or more |
Usefulness of training | No Yes | - | - |
Ownership of the institution/workplace | Public State subsidised Private | Public (1) State subsidised and private (0) | Public ownership or not |
Size municipality of workplace | <500 500–1000 1000–3000 3000–5000 5000–10,000 10,000–20,000 >20,000 | - | - |
Teamwork | No Yes | - | - |
Teamwork improves results | No Yes | - | - |
Users’ maximum level of dependency | Up to mild level Up to moderate level Up to severe level | Up to severe level (1) Rest (0) | Up to severe level or not |
Appendix A.2. Principal Component Analysis Results
Variable | Component1 | Component2 | Component3 | Non Explained |
---|---|---|---|---|
Schedule | −0.0493 | 0.5253 | –0.1254 | 0.3650 |
Workplace safety | 0.0446 | 0.3856 | 0.0552 | 0.3174 |
Workload | 0.1134 | 0.3417 | –0.0358 | 0.3433 |
Rest periods | 0.0141 | 0.4640 | –0.0873 | 0.3497 |
Information provided by the company | 0.2475 | 0.1683 | –0.0348 | 0.3376 |
Working environment | 0.2614 | –0.0934 | 0.3066 | 0.2738 |
Relationship with co–workers | –0.0167 | –0.1182 | 0.6594 | 0.2731 |
Relationship with users | –0.2361 | 0.3544 | 0.4387 | 0.4096 |
Promotion opportunities | 0.3026 | 0.0831 | –0.0708 | 0.3839 |
Supervision and coordination with superiors | 0.1777 | 0.0657 | 0.2533 | 0.3592 |
Relationship with superiors | 0.2312 | 0.0312 | 0.2194 | 0.3089 |
Motivation from company | 0.2945 | 0.0391 | 0.0869 | 0.2886 |
Autonomy in decision–making | 0.386 | –0.0700 | –0.0242 | 0.3300 |
Possibility to take part in company decisions | 0.4331 | –0.0739 | –0.1536 | 0.3030 |
Possibility of negotiation working conditions | 0.3329 | 0.0578 | –0.1709 | 0.4307 |
Comfortable working environment | 0.2788 | –0.0214 | 0.2029 | 0.2747 |
Doing a job they enjoy | 0.0917 | 0.1972 | 0.1746 | 0.4840 |
References
- Colombo, F.; Llena-Nozal, A.; Mercier, J.; Tjadens, F. Help Wanted? Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care; OECD: Paris, France, 2011; ISBN 9789264097582. [Google Scholar]
- Instituto Nacional de Estadística Estadística del Padrón Continuo; Instituto Nacional de Estadística: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
- World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 978-92-4-156504-2. [Google Scholar]
- Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ley 39/2006, de 14 de Diciembre, de Promoción de la Autonomía Personal y Atención a las Personas en Situación de Dependencia; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- IMSERSO. Informe Anual IMSERSO 2019; IMSERSO: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
- Abellán García, A.; Aceituno Nieto, M.d.P.; Ramiro Fariñas, D. Estadísticas Sobre Residencias: Distribución de Centros y Plazas Residenciales por Provincia. Datos de Abril de 2019; Informes Envejecimiento en Red n° 24: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Castaneda, G.A.; Scanlan, J.M. Job satisfaction in nursing: A concept analysis study. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2014, 49, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Barriball, K.L.; Zhang, X.; While, A.E. Job satisfaction among hospital nurses revisited: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2012, 49, 1017–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harolds, J.A. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, Part LVII: Teams to Prevent Burnout and Increase Joy. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2020, 45, 299–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moyle, W.; Skinner, J.; Rowe, G.; Gork, C. Views of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in Australian long-term care. J. Clin. Nurs. 2003, 12, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloisio, L.D.; Baumbusch, J.; Estabrooks, C.A.; Bostrom, A.-M.; Chamberlain, S.; Cummings, G.G.; Thompson, G.; Squires, J.E. Factors affecting job satisfaction in long-term care unit managers, directors of care and facility administrators: A secondary analysis. J. Nurs. Manag. 2019, 27, 1764–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwendimann, R.; Dhaini, S.; Ausserhofer, D.; Engberg, S.; Zúñiga, F. Factors associated with high job satisfaction among care workers in Swiss nursing homes—A cross sectional survey study. BMC Nurs. 2016, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Egan, M.; Kadushin, G. Job satisfaction of home health social workers in the environment of cost containment. Health Soc. Work 2004, 29, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roh, C.Y.; Moon, M.J.; Yang, S.B.; Jung, K. Linking emotional labor, public service motivation, and Job satisfaction: Social workers in health care settings. Soc. Work Public Health 2016, 31, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gleasonwynn, P.; Mindel, C.H. A Proposed Model for Predicting Job Satisfaction Among Nursing Home Social Workers. J. Gerontocial. Soc. Work 1999, 32, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.; Flynn, L.; Aiken, L.H. Nursing practice environment and registered nurses’job satisfaction in nursing homes. Gerontologist 2012, 52, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schmidt, S.G.; Dichter, M.N.; Bartholomeyczik, S.; Hasselhorn, H.M. The satisfaction with the quality of dementia care and the health, burnout and work ability of nurses: A longitudinal analysis of 50 German nursing homes. Geriatr. Nurs. 2014, 35, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westermann, C.; Kozak, A.; Harling, M.; Nienhaus, A. Burnout intervention studies for inpatient elderly care nursing staff: Systematic literature review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2014, 51, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Squires, J.E.; Hoben, M.; Linklater, S.; Carleton, H.L.; Graham, N.; Estabrooks, C.A. Job Satisfaction among Care Aides in Residential Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review of Contributing Factors, Both Individual and Organizational. Nurs. Res. Pract. 2015, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chamberlain, S.A.; Hoben, M.; Squires, J.E.; Estabrooks, C.A. Individual and organizational predictors of health care aide job satisfaction in long term care. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruiz-Fernández, M.D.; Ortega-Galán, Á.M.; Fernández-Sola, C.; Hernández-Padilla, J.M.; Granero-Molina, J.; Ramos-Pichardo, J.D. Occupational factors associated with health-related quality of life in nursing professionals: A multi-centre study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fité-Serra, A.M.; Gea-Sánchez, M.; Alconada-Romero, Á.; Mateos, J.T.; Blanco-Blanco, J.; Barallat-Gimeno, E.; Roca-Llobet, J.; Muntaner, C. Occupational Precariousness of Nursing Staff in Catalonia’s Public and Private Nursing Homes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sarabia-Cobo, C.M.; Díez Saiz, Z.; San Millán Sierra, S.; Salado Morales, L.; Clemente Campo, V. Relación entre estrés y calidad de vida en profesionales del área psicogeriátrica como medidor de intervención para mejora en el clima laboral. Gerokomos 2016, 27, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
- Briones-Peralta, M.; Pardo-García, I.; Escribano-Sotos, F. Effects of a practical training programme on burnout among professional caregivers in a care home for older adults with dementia: A pilot study. Psychogeriatrics 2020, 20, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software; Release 16; StataCorp: College Station, TX, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Erol, R.; Brooker, D.; Peel, E. Women and Dementia: A global research review; University of Worcester: Worcester, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, B.; Tudiver, F.; Manson, J. Sons as sole caregivers for their elderly parents: How do they cope? Can. Fam. Physician 2000, 46, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Vernooij-Dasssen, M.J.; Faber, M.J.; Olde Rikkert, M.G.; Koopmans, R.T.; van Achterberg, T.; Braat, D.D.; Raas, G.P.; Wollersheim, H. Dementia care and labour market: The role of job satisfaction. Aging Ment. Health 2009, 13, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, A.; Nolan, M.; Sousa, L.; Figueiredo, D. Dementia in Long-term Care Homes: Direct Care Workers’ Difficulties. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 140, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dilig-Ruiz, A.; MacDonald, I.; Demery Varin, M.; Vandyk, A.; Graham, I.D.; Squires, J.E. Job satisfaction among critical care nurses: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2018, 88, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouxel, G.; Michinov, E.; Dodeler, V. The influence of work characteristics, emotional display rules and affectivity on burnout and job satisfaction: A survey among geriatric care workers. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 62, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utriainen, K.; Kyngäs, H. Hospital nurses’ job satisfaction: A literature review. J. Nurs. Manag. 2009, 17, 1002–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrad, R.; Sulla, F. Factors associated with and impact of burnout in nursing and residential home care workers for the elderly. Acta Bio Med. 2018, 89, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fukuda, K.; Terada, S.; Hashimoto, M.; Ukai, K.; Kumagai, R.; Suzuki, M.; Nagaya, M.; Yoshida, M.; Hattori, H.; Murotani, K.; et al. Effectiveness of educational program using printed educational material on care burden distress among staff of residential aged care facilities without medical specialists and/or registered nurses: Cluster quasi-randomization study. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2018, 18, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takizawa, T.; Takahashi, M.; Takai, M.; Ikeda, T.; Miyaoka, H. Changes in job stress and coping skills among caregivers after dementia care practitioner training. Psychogeriatrics 2017, 17, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barbosa, A.; Nolan, M.; Sousa, L.; Marques, A.; Figueiredo, D. Effects of a Psychoeducational Intervention for Direct Care Workers Caring for People with Dementia. Am. J. Alzheimers. Dis. Other Demen. 2016, 31, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwijsen, S.A.; Gerritsen, D.L.; Eefsting, J.A.; Smalbrugge, M.; Hertogh, C.M.P.M.; Pot, A.M. Coming to grips with challenging behaviour: A cluster randomised controlled trial on the effects of a new care programme for challenging behaviour on burnout, job satisfaction and job demands of care staff on dementia special care units. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2015, 52, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hussein, S.; Manthorpe, J. An international review of the long-term care workforce: Policies and shortages. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2005, 17, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sex | N (%) | Working Day | N (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Female | 205 (80.1) | Shifts | 126 (50.2) |
Male | 51 (19.9) | Full day | 73 (29.1) |
Level of Education | Split shift | 22 (8.8) | |
No completed studies | 5 (2.0) | Part–time | 21 (8.4) |
Basic education | 13 (5.2) | As needs require/Flexible/On Call | 9 (3.6) |
Primary Education | 30 (11.9) | Type of Contract | |
Vocational training Grade 1 and Grade 2 | 100 (39.7) | Temporary | 60 (23.4) |
Higher secondary | 28 (11.1) | Permanent | 196 (76.6) |
Lower university degree/Higher university degree/Master’s degree/PhD | 76 (30.2) | Rank | |
Age | Employee | 209 (83.3) | |
16–25 | 20 (7.9) | Supervisor | 26 (10.4) |
26–40 | 86 (34.1) | Middle and senior management | 16 (6.4) |
41–55 | 106 (42.1) | Length of Service | |
>55 | 40 (15.9) | <1 year | 32 (12.7) |
Marital status | 1–3 years | 44 (17.4) | |
Single | 87 (34.7) | 3–5 years | 28 (11.1) |
Married/Living together | 135 (53.8) | 5–10 years | 38 (15.0) |
Divorced | 22 (8.8) | >10 years | 111 (43.9) |
Widowed | 7 (2.8) | Distance from Home to Workplace | |
Size municipality of residence | <5 km | 156 (61.7) | |
<20,000 | 92 (36.7) | >5 km | 97 (38.3) |
>20,000 | 159 (63.3) | Users’ Level of Dependency | |
Size municipality of workplace | Mild | 48 (18.9) | |
<20,000 | 61 (25.8) | Moderate | 71 (28.0) |
>20,000 | 175 (74.2) | Severe | 135 (53.2) |
Position | Teamwork | ||
Nursing home duties | 84 (33.5) | No | 19 (7.5) |
Psychology/Social work | 6 (2.4) | Yes | 233 (92.5) |
Care aides | 86 (34.3) | Teamwork Improves Results | |
Health care | 37 (14.7) | No | 18 (7.1) |
Maintenance | 17 (6.8) | Yes | 236 (92.9) |
Management/Administration | 18 (7.2) | ||
Leisure | 3 (1.2) |
Has Received Previous Training | N (%) |
---|---|
No | 80 (31.5) |
Yes | 174 (68.5) |
The Company Provides Training | |
No | 109 (42.9) |
Yes | 145 (57.1) |
Has Received Training | |
Never | 68 (26.7) |
In the last 2 years | 90 (35.3) |
In the last year | 28 (11.0) |
In the last 6 months | 56 (22.0) |
In the last month | 13 (5.1) |
Length of Training | |
<10 h | 88 (47.1) |
10–20 h | 37 (19.8) |
20–50 h | 47 (25.1) |
>50 h | 15 (8.0) |
Usefulness of Training | |
No | 165 (65.0) |
Yes | 89 (35.0) |
Level of Satisfaction | N (%) | Mean (SD) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
Schedule | 28 (11.0) | 30 (11.8) | 74 (29.1) | 56 (22.1) | 66 (26.0) | 3.4 (1.3) |
Workplace safety | 27 (10.7) | 30 (11.9) | 75 (29.6) | 76 (30.0) | 45 (17.8) | 3.3 (1.2) |
Workload | 60 (23.5) | 55 (21.6) | 67 (26.3) | 47 (18.4) | 26 (10.2) | 2.7 (1.2) |
Rest periods | 43 (16.9) | 34 (13.4) | 68 (26.8) | 56 (22.1) | 53 (20.9) | 3.2 (1.3) |
Information provided by the company | 51 (20.1) | 54 (21.3) | 65 (25.6) | 47 (18.5) | 37 (14.6) | 2.9 (1.3) |
Working environment | 43 (17.0) | 41 (16.2) | 68 (26.9) | 73 (28.9) | 28 (11.1) | 3.0 (1.2) |
Relationship with co-workers | 15 (5.9) | 15 (5.9) | 57 (22.4) | 88 (34.5) | 80 (31.4) | 3.8 (1.1) |
Relationship with users | 3 (1.2) | 3 (1.2) | 44 (17.3) | 95 (37.4) | 109 (42.9) | 4.2 (0.9) |
Promotion opportunities | 71 (28.0) | 50 (19.7) | 70 (27.6) | 42 (16.5) | 21 (8.3) | 2.6 (1.3) |
Supervision and coordination with superiors | 37 (14.5) | 43 (16.9) | 49 (19.2) | 72 (28.2) | 54 (21.2) | 3.2 (1.4) |
Relationship with superiors | 26 (10.2) | 35 (13.8) | 55 (21.7) | 74 (29.1) | 64 (25.2) | 3.4 (1.3) |
Motivation from company | 56 (22.0) | 48 (18.8) | 68 (26.7) | 52 (20.4) | 31 (12.2) | 2.8 (1.3) |
Autonomy in decision-making | 50 (19.7) | 43 (16.9) | 78 (30.7) | 52 (20.5) | 31 (12.2) | 2.8 (1.3) |
Possibility to take part in company decisions | 85 (33.7) | 57 (22.6) | 65 (25.8) | 33 (13.1) | 12 (4.8) | 2.3 (1.2) |
Possibility of negotiation working conditions | 84 (33.2) | 55 (21.7) | 61 (24.1) | 36 (14.2) | 17 (6.7) | 2.4 (1.2) |
Comfortable working environment | 35 (13.8) | 39 (15.4) | 77 (30.3) | 70 (27.6) | 33 (13.0) | 3.1 (1.2) |
Doing a job they enjoy | 22 (8.7) | 34 (13.5) | 61 (24.2) | 64 (25.4) | 71 (28.2) | 3.5 (1.3) |
Component 1. Decision-Making | |||
---|---|---|---|
Independent Variables | Beta Coefficient | Standard Error | p |
Has received previous training | 0.775 | 0.335 | 0.022 |
Publicly owned or not | 0.740 | 0.322 | 0.023 |
Teamwork improves results | 1.043 | 0.545 | 0.057 |
Length of service | −0.562 | 0.101 | <0.001 |
Company provides training | 1.386 | 0.315 | <0.001 |
Work in social and health care or not | −0.710 | 0.360 | 0.050 |
Severe dependency or not | −0.744 | 0.293 | 0.012 |
Usefulness of training | 0.663 | 0.308 | 0.032 |
Responsibility in position | 0.562 | 0.246 | 0.023 |
Component 2. Working Conditions | |||
Independent Variables | Beta Coefficient | Standard Error | p |
Length of service | −0.339 | 0.074 | <0.001 |
Severe dependency or not | −0.511 | 0.229 | 0.027 |
Has received previous training | 0.878 | 0.262 | 0.001 |
Responsibility in position | 0.396 | 0.193 | 0.041 |
Usefulness of training | 0.426 | 0.242 | 0.079 |
Position | −0.868 | 0.271 | 0.002 |
Company provides training | 0.660 | 0.242 | 0.007 |
Component 3. Working Environment | |||
Independent Variables | Beta Coefficient | Standard Error | p |
Publicly owned or not | 0.622 | 0.196 | 0.002 |
Level of education | 0.086 | 0.050 | 0.083 |
Severe dependency or not | −0.356 | 0.177 | 0.045 |
Length of service | −0.338 | 0.066 | <0.001 |
Usefulness of training | 0.523 | 0.191 | 0.007 |
Has received previous training | 0.388 | 0.201 | 0.055 |
Teamwork improves results | 0.644 | 0.344 | 0.062 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pardo-Garcia, I.; Martinez-Lacoba, R.; Escribano-Sotos, F. Socioeconomic Factors Related to Job Satisfaction among Formal Care Workers in Nursing Homes for Older Dependent Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042152
Pardo-Garcia I, Martinez-Lacoba R, Escribano-Sotos F. Socioeconomic Factors Related to Job Satisfaction among Formal Care Workers in Nursing Homes for Older Dependent Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042152
Chicago/Turabian StylePardo-Garcia, Isabel, Roberto Martinez-Lacoba, and Francisco Escribano-Sotos. 2021. "Socioeconomic Factors Related to Job Satisfaction among Formal Care Workers in Nursing Homes for Older Dependent Adults" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 4: 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042152
APA StylePardo-Garcia, I., Martinez-Lacoba, R., & Escribano-Sotos, F. (2021). Socioeconomic Factors Related to Job Satisfaction among Formal Care Workers in Nursing Homes for Older Dependent Adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042152