↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of burnout, work engagement and nurse reported job outcomes and quality of care: a mixed method study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
579 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of burnout, work engagement and nurse reported job outcomes and quality of care: a mixed method study
Published in
BMC Nursing, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0200-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Van Bogaert, Lieve Peremans, Danny Van Heusden, Martijn Verspuy, Veronika Kureckova, Zoë Van de Cruys, Erik Franck

Abstract

High levels of work-related stress, burnout, job dissatisfaction, and poor health are common within the nursing profession. A comprehensive understanding of nurses' psychosocial work environment is necessary to respond to complex patients' needs. The aims of this study were threefold: (1) To retest and confirm two structural equation models exploring associations between practice environment and work characteristics as predictors of burnout (model 1) and engagement (model 2) as well as nurse-reported job outcome and quality of care; (2) To study staff nurses' and nurse managers' perceptions and experiences of staff nurses' workload; (3) To explain and interpret the two models by using the qualitative study findings. This mixed method study is based on an explanatory sequential study design. We first performed a cross-sectional survey design in two large acute care university hospitals. Secondly, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with staff nurses and nurse managers assigned to medical or surgical units in one of the study hospitals. Study data was collected between September 2014 and June 2015. Finally, qualitative study results assisted in explaining and interpreting the findings of the two models. The two models with burnout and engagement as mediating outcome variables fitted sufficiently to the data. Nurse-reported job outcomes and quality of care explained variances between 52 and 62%. Nurse management at the unit level and workload had a direct impact on outcome variables with explained variances between 23 and 36% and between 12 and 17%, respectively. Personal accomplishment and depersonalization had an explained variance on job outcomes of 23% and vigor of 20%. Burnout and engagement had a less relevant direct impact on quality of care (≤5%). The qualitative study revealed various themes such as organisation of daily practice and work conditions; interdisciplinary collaboration, communication and teamwork; staff nurse personal characteristics and competencies; patient centeredness, quality and patient safety. Respondents' statements corresponded closely to the models' associations. A deep understanding of various associations and impacts on studied outcome variables such as risk factors and protective factors was gained through the retested models and the interviews with the study participants. Besides the softer work characteristics - such as decision latitude, social capital and team cohesion - more insight and knowledge of the hard work characteristic workload is essential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 579 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 579 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 109 19%
Student > Bachelor 58 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 44 8%
Lecturer 26 4%
Other 102 18%
Unknown 185 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 198 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 7%
Psychology 41 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 38 7%
Social Sciences 21 4%
Other 42 7%
Unknown 197 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,236,913
of 25,119,447 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#51
of 928 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,225
of 429,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,119,447 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 928 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.