4.5 Article

Job perceptions and intent to leave among direct care workers: Evidence from the better jobs better care demonstrations

Journal

GERONTOLOGIST
Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 820-829

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/47.6.820

Keywords

direct care workers; turnover intention

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We assess how perceived rewards and problems with caregiving work and supervision relate to intent to leave among direct care workers who are employed in provider organizations participating in the Better Jobs Better Care (BJBC) demonstration; we also examine how these relationships vary by provider type. Design and Methods: Direct care workers from 50 skilled nursing facilities, 39 home care agencies, 40 assisted living facilities, and 10 adult day services in five states completed a paper survey administered prior to the implementation of the BJBC interventions in each organization. We include direct care workers (n = 3,039) with complete data in the analyses using multinomial regression clustered by provider organization to compare those not at all likely to leave and those very likely to leave in the next year with a middle referent group who are somewhat likely to leave. Results: Logistic regression results were that work overload and lack of upward mobility increased intent to leave. Respondents with positive assessments of their supervisor, who valued helping others, and for whom the income was perceived as rewarding were less likely to be in the very likely to quit category and more likely to be in the stable category. Some differences between provider types are observed, especially between home care workers and those employed in facilities. Implications: These findings provide support for many of the management-practice improvements taking place in the field, including those implemented in the BJBC demonstration. Follow-up surveys will provide insight into their effectiveness.

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