4.5 Article

Working life and stress symptoms among caregivers in elderly care with formal and no formal competence

Journal

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 732-741

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01270.x

Keywords

elderly care; job satisfaction; psychological empowerment; stress symptoms; structural empowerment

Funding

  1. University of Gavle
  2. European Social Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim The aim of the present study was to describe and compare caregivers with formal and no formal competence on job satisfaction, psychosomatic health, structural and psychological empowerment and perceptions of care quality. A further aim was to study relationships among study variables. Methods A convenience sample of 572 caregivers in elderly care participated. Results Caregivers with no formal competence perceived higher workload, more communication obstacles, less competence, poorer sleep and more stress symptoms than did their colleagues. Linear regression analyses revealed that the factor self-determination was an explanatory variable of stress levels among caregivers with no formal competence, and self-determination and impact among caregivers with formal competence. Linear regression analysis revealed that different dimensions in structural and psychological empowerment explained the variance in staff job satisfaction, perceived stress symptoms and quality of care. Conclusions No formal competence seems to be a risk factor for psychosomatic health problems. Implications for nursing management Managers need to have a strategic plan for how to create a working environment for caregivers with no formal competence. Caregivers' self-determination seems to be important for stress symptoms. Meaning, self-determination, impact and opportunities appear to be important for job satisfaction and competence, opportunities, resources and formal power for quality of care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available