4.5 Article

A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Personal and Professional Resources on Nurses' Work Engagement: A Comparison of Early-Career and Mid-Later-Career Nurses

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11010076

关键词

antecedent factors; cross-lagged panel design; early-career nurses; personal resources; professional resources; work engagement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to predict and ensure a healthy and high-performing nursing workforce, it is important to identify the factors that promote work engagement, particularly among early-career nurses. This longitudinal survey conducted in 2019 examined the causal relationship between personal and professional resources and work engagement among early-career nurses in Japan. The results showed that personal and professional resources had a significant and positive impact on work engagement after 3 months.
To predict and ensure a healthy and high-performing nursing workforce, it is necessary to identify the antecedents that promote work engagement, especially among early-career nurses. To date no study has focused on this. This longitudinal survey, administered to 1204 nurses working in seven general hospitals with 200 or more beds in four prefectures in Japan at two different times in 2019, aims to examine the causal relationship between the personal and professional resources for nurses to work vigorously (PPR-N) and work engagement among nurses in the early stages of their careers, considering time as a key mediating factor. The analysis of structural equation modeling using the cross-lagged effect model supported that PPR-N had significant and positive effects on work engagement after 3 months among early-career nurses with less than 10 years of nursing experience. The PPR-N is a reliable antecedent of work engagement, which is typical of early-career nurses. These results may be provided guidance for managers in overseeing the work environment to ensure a thriving sustainable nursing workforce.

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

4.5
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