ArticlePloS one2022
Measuring job satisfaction of midwives: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and validation of the "labour ward job satisfaction scale for midwives (LWJSS-M)" in Spain.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Job Satisfaction Among Midwives in High-Intervention Birthing Rooms: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Adapting to change: an analysis of midwives' job satisfaction in the post-pandemic workplace.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Emotional intelligence approach as a predictor of job satisfaction among midwives in Northern Iran: A descriptive-correlational study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Perinatal healthcare for women at risk of children's social care involvement: a qualitative survey of professionals in England.BMJ open · 2024Article
- The quiet quitting scale: Development and initial validation.AIMS public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the global shortage of midwives, it is of utmost interest to improve midwives' job satisfaction and working environments. Precise measurement tools are needed to identify both predictors of job satisfaction and intervention strategies which could increase it. The aim of this study is to collate, describe and analyse instruments used in research to assess the job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals, to identify valid and reliable tools and to make recommendations for the further development of specific instruments for midwifery practice and future midwifery research.
methodsWe conducted systematic literature searches of the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database. Studies which assessed the job satisfaction of midwives working in a hospital setting were eligible for inclusion.
findingsOut of 637 records 36 empirical research articles were analysed, 27 of them cross-sectional studies. The studies had been conducted in 23 different countries, with sample sizes ranging between nine and 5.446 participants. Over 30 different instruments were used to measure midwives' job satisfaction, with considerable differences in terms of domains evaluated and number of items. Twelve domains relevant for job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals were identified from the empirical studies. Four instruments met the defined reliability and validity criteria.
conclusionAutonomy, the significance of the job, the challenges of balancing work and private life, and the high emotional and physical demands of midwifery are job characteristics which are underrepresented in instruments measuring job satisfaction. The influence of the physical working environment has also not yet been researched. There is a need to develop or adapt instruments to the working environment of midwives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.