Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35366877›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Job satisfaction in midwives and its association with organisational and psychosocial factors at work: a nation-wide, cross-sectional study.

Malin Hansson, Anna Dencker, Ingela Lundgren, Ing-Marie Carlsson, Monica Eriksson, Gunnel Hensing

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Malin HanssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P O Box 457, 405 30, Gothenburg, SE, Sweden. malin.hansson@fhs.gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0877-2366
Anna DenckerInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P O Box 457, 405 30, Gothenburg, SE, Sweden.
Ingela LundgrenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P O Box 457, 405 30, Gothenburg, SE, Sweden.
Ing-Marie CarlssonDepartment of Health and Nursing, School of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Monica ErikssonDepartment of Health Sciences, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden.
Gunnel HensingSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SEHalmstad University · SEUniversity West · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMidwives report a challenging work environment globally, with high levels of burnout, insufficient work resources and low job satisfaction. The primary objective of this study was to identify factors in the organisational and psychosocial work environment associated with midwives' job satisfaction. A secondary objective was to identify differences in how midwives assess the organisational and psychosocial work environment compared to Swedish benchmarks.

methodsThis nation-wide, cross-sectional web survey study analysed midwives' assessment of their organisational and psychosocial work environment using the COPSOQ III instrument. A multivariable, bi-directional, stepwise linear regression was used to identify association with job satisfaction (N = 1747, 99.6% women). A conventional minimal important score difference (MID ± 5 as a noticeable difference with clinical importance) were used to compare midwives' results with Swedish benchmarks.

resultsA multivariable regression model with 13 scales explained the variance in job satisfaction (R

conclusionsMidwives reported high levels of meaningfulness in their work, and meaningfulness was associated with job satisfaction. However, midwives also reported adversely high demands and a lack of influence and recognition at work and in addition, high role conflict and burnout compared to Swedish benchmarks. The lack of organisational resources are modifiable factors that can be taken into account when structural changes are made regarding organisation of care, management and resource allocation. Midwives are necessary to a high quality sexual, reproductive and perinatal health care. Future studies are needed to investigate if job satisfaction can be improved through professional recognition and development, and if this can reduce turnover in midwives.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalMidwiferyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansJob SatisfactionMalePersonnel TurnoverPregnancyCOPSOQ IIIMidwiferyProfessional autonomySalutogenesisWork environmentWork satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID35366877
PMCPMC8976984
OpenAlexW4226268513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.