4.6 Article

Job stress, achievement motivation and occupational burnout among male nurses

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 66, 期 7, 页码 1592-1601

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05323.x

关键词

achievement motivation; job stress; male nurses; occupational burnout; Taiwan

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tide. Job stress, achievement motivation and occupational burnout among male nurses. Aim. This paper is a report of an exploration of job stress, achievement motivation and occupational burnout in male nurses and to identify predictors of occupational burnout. Background. Since the Nightingale era, the nursing profession has been recognized as 'women's work'. The data indicate that there are more female nurses than male nurses in Taiwan. However, the turnover rate for male nurses is twice that of female nurses. Understanding the factors that affect occupational burnout of male nurses may help researchers find ways to reduce the likelihood that they will quit. Method. A survey was conducted in Taiwan in 2008 using a cross-sectional design. A total of 121 male nurses participated in the study. Mailed questionnaires were used to collect data, which were analysed using descriptive statistics and stepwise multiple regression. Results. The job stress of male nurses was strongly correlated with occupational burnout (r = 0.64, P < 0.001). Stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated that job stress was the only factor to have a statistically significant direct influence on occupational burnout, accounting for 45.8% of the variance in this. Job stress was comprised of three dimensions, of which role conflict accounted for 40.8% of the variance in occupational burnout. Conclusion. The contribution of job stress to occupational burnout of male nurses was confirmed. As occupational burnout may influence the quality of care by these nurses, nurse managers should strive to decrease male nurses' job stress as this should lead to a reduction of negative outcomes of occupational burnout.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据