1. bookVolume 9 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2544-8994
First Published
30 Mar 2018
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Predictive roles of organizational and personal factors in work engagement among nurses

Published Online: 31 Dec 2022
Volume & Issue: Volume 9 (2022) - Issue 4 (December 2022)
Page range: 379 - 387
Received: 03 Apr 2022
Accepted: 31 Aug 2022
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2544-8994
First Published
30 Mar 2018
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Introduction

A nurse’s role is indispensable in the realm of health care. The far-reaching impact of nurses on work and patient outcomes in the hospital setting is undeniable. Research reveals that engagement influences nursing practice environments, which in turn affect work output. Nurses are engaged when they feel recognized and involved in their organizations. In this context, nurses likely exhibit a positive attitude toward the organization and are enthusiastic about their work environment.1

Work engagement is defined as a positive work-related state of mind consisting of three significant dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption.2 Vigor signifies mental vitality that allows individuals to be highly energetic at work; an employee displaying vigor endeavors to complete work even when faced with difficulties. Dedication entails being highly involved and connected to the job such that one’s attitude toward work consists of a sense of enthusiasm, encouragement, and a perception of being meaningfully challenged. Absorption refers to being completely connected and gladly focused at work such that it becomes difficult to detach from one’s job.3 Under these circumstances, the efficacy and performance of the engaged worker are augmented and the employee is less likely to experience burnout. As the largest group in health care, nursing professionals face a demanding and stressful work environment. A steadfast commitment and dedication to their work—exemplified by engagement—is a means by which nurses can cope with these challenges.4

Research has continued to explore and demonstrate the impact of nurses’ work engagement on work outcomes.59 Understanding the factors that predict and drive work engagement has been essential in developing meaningful interventions and programs. Previous studies have identified some predictors of work engagement. For instance, Sohrabizadeh and Sayfouri10 found that managerial and organizational support, rewards and acknowledgment, and work attributes can predict levels of work engagement, eventually leading to a higher level of job satisfaction, a sense of belonging to the institution, quality patient care, and improved work experience.

Educational preparation, age, and the number of work hours per week are significantly associated with the degree of work engagement.11 Lepistö et al.12 indicated that years of nursing experience, female gender, generation, and time spent weekly in managerial tasks are significantly correlated to some dimensions of work engagement. Wan et al.13 observed that nurse job characteristics and work environments are largely significant predictors of work engagement. The authors further suggested that nurse managers must provide the means to shape or hone these factors to enhance the quality of patient care and work outcomes. More recent empirical evidence supports that occupational tenure predicts nurse work engagement levels, indicating that those with longer professional practice gain confidence in rendering care and services.14

The job demands–resources (JD–R) model has been used as a framework in several foreign studies on work engagement. The model posits that job resources such as work and personal or individual resources significantly affect work engagement.15 Specifically, these job resources include physical, organizational, and social factors that play a motivational role in professional and personal development and work goal achievement.16 The model also assumes that job resources protect against the toll—such as heavy workloads, work aggression, or burnout—associated with job demands. Hence, as job resources heavily impact staff work engagement, they are the main predictors of work engagement.17 The JD–R model flexibly allows the incorporation of all types of work characteristics and is therefore explicitly applicable in many specific work environments.3 Thus, we adopted the model in this study, seeking to determine the model’s applicability in the nursing arena—especially for nurses working in a hospital setting.

Nursing is the largest profession in health care in the Philippines. Health institutions such as hospitals remain the most common workplace for nurses. A recent review on the country’s health care system revealed that >90,000 nurses work in health care institutions.18 Nursing was perceived to be a stressful profession19 while hospitals—where most nurses are employed—were deemed one of the most stressful and demanding workplaces. In such a challenging health care environment, nurses tend to experience job dissatisfaction and eventually consider resigning. Retention of the nursing workforce—especially its highly trained segment—is a constant challenge faced by nurse and hospital managers in the Philippines. In addition, the rampant decades-long migration of Filipino nurses abroad20 has been aggravated by factors related to their work environment and outcomes.21,22 These factors have caused negative consequences in the country’s health care system, especially in the distribution and production of health human resources. Therefore, addressing nurse retention and assisting nurses in engaging in their work environment are crucial. Studying Filipino nurse work engagement and its predictors is timely, as study results may help nurse and hospital administrators identify strategies and procedures to boost engagement of staff nurses at work and adopt predictors of engagement. Examining work engagement may be common in foreign settings, but the concept is rarely investigated with Filipino nurses. Ours is one of the preliminary studies of its kind in the local setting. This study investigated the work engagement levels of hospital nurses and the role that nurses’ personal and organizational characteristics play in predicting engagement.

Methods
Aims

This study aimed to determine the work engagement levels of hospital nurses and the role that nurses’ personal and organizational characteristics play in predicting engagement.

Research design

The study employed a cross-sectional design and included survey data collected from June 2018 to December 2018.

Participants and settings

The study included 549 nurses from 14 hospitals in the Central Philippines. Hospitals included general, non-specialized, government, and private-owned hospitals; bed capacity was not specified.

Participants were selected through purposive sampling using the following inclusion criteria: (1) registered nurse in the country, (2) working as a hospital nurse for at least the last 3 months, (3) working in a private or government hospital, and (4) has agreed to participate in the study. Nurses whose job did not entail direct patient care were excluded.

Instruments

The characteristics of participants were collected according to (1) personal factors including age, gender, years in nursing, years in their present unit, marital status, highest education attained, position, type of contract, and shift length and (2) organizational factors including hospital type, hospital bed capacity, unit of assignment, and location.

Nurse work engagement was determined using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17) developed by Schaufeli and Bakker.23 The scale consists of 17 items categorized into three subscales: vigor (6 items), dedication (5 items), and absorption (6 items). Participants scored each item of the questionnaire using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Previous studies demonstrated good internal consistency using Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.88 to 0.95.24,25

Data collection and analysis

We secured approval letters from hospital or medical center heads through nursing service department chiefs. Nurse supervisors and head nurses coordinated to select target participants. Informed consent was secured from each participant prior to data collection. Sufficient information was provided to participants regarding the purpose, potential benefits and risks, and possible harm arising from the study. After providing participants 24 h to complete the study questionnaire, researchers collected and inspected questionnaires for completeness and accuracy. The data were statistically analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23, software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics included frequency counts, percentages, weighted arithmetic means, and standard deviations (SDs). Pearson r, t test, and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to determine correlations between variables. Multiple linear regression analysis was applied to measure the impact of nurse characteristics on their work engagement. Significance level was set at <0.05.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was secured from a local ethics board prior to study implementation (SSU-91018-09). Likewise, the hospitals’ respective ethics boards approved conducting the study in their vicinities. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to the survey. Voluntary participation was emphasized, and every researcher provided sufficient information about the study according to its objectives, purposes, possible benefits, and potential risks and harm. Confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy of participants were maintained throughout the study. The risk of harm from this study was associated with any potential breaches of confidentiality and the consequences of such breaches. Participants were informed that they could withdraw their participation at any time during the study and that all information collected from them would be discarded thereafter. Participants were not paid to contribute to the study, and no conflict of interest existed given researchers had no authority over participants. Coding was performed during tallying and analysis of the data, and researchers had exclusive access to raw data.

Results

A total of 549 registered nurses participated in this study. Participants’ mean age was 29.80 years (SD = 7.80). Mean years in nursing was 6.75 years (SD = 6.37), and mean years in present unit was 3.55 years (SD = 4.51). The majority of nurses were female (78.7%), married (68.7%), holders of bachelor’s degrees (91.1%), and worked as permanent (72.3%) nursing staff (86.9%) in hospitals located in urban areas (78.5%). The nurses who worked in private hospitals (59.2%) with bed capacity 100 (42.8%) were assigned to medical wards (32.4%), surgical wards (16.4%), and intensive/critical care units (12.0%).

Table 1 presents the means and SDs for each subscale of work engagement. The means of the vigor, dedication, and absorption subscales were 3.70 (SD = 1.06), 4.16 (SD = 1.19), and 3.75 (SD = 1.08), respectively. The composite mean of work engagement was 3.85 (SD = 1.05). According to UWES-17 norm scores, our study indicated that nurses experienced an average level (i.e., “a few times a month”) of vigor, dedication, absorption, and overall work engagement.

Descriptive statistics of nurse work engagement.

CharacteristicsnRangeMinimumMaximumMeanSD
Vigor5495.001.006.003.701.06
Dedication5495.001.006.004.161.19
Absorption5495.001.006.003.751.08
Total engagement5495.001.006.003.851.05
Valid n (listwise)549

Note: SD, standard deviation.

Table 2 presents the correlations between nurse characteristics and work engagement. We noted five nurse characteristics that positively correlated with overall job engagement and its three subscales (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Traits included nurses’ age in years (r = 0.147, P = 0.001), years in the profession (r = 0.149, P = 001), the number of years in the present unit (r = 0.096, P = 0.024), position occupied (t = 4.380, P = 0.001), and hospital bed capacity (F = 6.655, P = 0.001). Two nurse characteristics showed a significant positive correlation with overall job engagement. Only two of the engagement subscales displayed correlation: type of contract (t = 2.339, P = 0.020) and unit assignment (F = 2.507, P = 0.011). Moreover, nurses’ educational attainment positively correlated with overall job engagement (t = 2.210, P = 0.027) and the absorption subscale (t = 2.871, P = 0.004).

Correlations between nurse characteristics and work engagement (M ± SD).

CharacteristicsVigorDedicationAbsorptionOverall job engagement
Gender
    Male3.78 ± 1.114.12 ± 1.273.78 ± 1.16     3.88 ± 1.12
    Female3.68 ± 1.064.18 ± 1.183.75 ± 1.06     3.85 ± 1.03
    t0.8550.4570.269     0.235
    P value0.3930.6480.788     0.814
Age (years)
    r0.1710.1120.133     0.147
    P value<0.001***0.008**0.002**     0.001**
Years in nursing
    r0.1650.1070.149     0.149
    P value<0.001***0.012*<0.001***     <0.001***
Years on present unit
    r0.1130.0690.090     0.096
    P value0.008**0.1050.035*     0.024*
Marital Status
    Unmarried3.80 ± 1.144.21 ± 1.293.83 ± 1.15     3.94 ± 1.13
    Married3.66 ± 1.034.14 ± 1.153.73 ± 1.05     3.82 ± 1.01
    t1.4770.6761.093     1.154
    P value0.1400.5000.275     0.249
Work location
    Urban3.68 ± 1.054.15 ± 1.193.73 ± 1.07     3.84 ± 1.04
    Rural3.78 ± 1.134.20 ± 1.223.87 ± 1.14     3.93 ± 1.10
    t0.9150.3461.204     0.879
    P value0.3610.7300.229     0.380
Highest education attained
    BSN3.68 ± 1.054.14 ± 1.183.72 ± 1.07     3.83 ± 1.04
    MA/MS/PhD3.97 ± 1.194.42 ± 1.314.18 ± 1.15     4.18 ± 1.16
    t1.8361.5552.871     2.210
    P value0.0670.1200.004**     0.027*
Position
    Staff nurse3.64 ± 1.074.10 ± 1.223.68 ± 1.08     3.79 ± 1.06
    Manager nurse4.10 ± 0.994.59 ± 0.964.27 ± 0.95     4.30 ± 0.90
    t3.4153.8604.372     4.380
    P value0.001**<0.001***<0.001***     <0.001***
Type of contract
    Permanent3.77 ± 1.054.24 ± 1.203.81 ± 1.05     3.92 ± 1.04
    Casual/part-time3.52 ± 1.093.97 ± 1.173.62 ± 1.16     3.69 ± 1.07
    t2.4372.3491.786     2.339
    P value0.015*0.019*0.075     0.020*
Last shift length (h)
    <103.74 ± 0.994.23 ± 1.133.80 ± 1.03     3.91 ± 0.97
    ≥103.66 ± 1.154.08 ± 1.273.71 ± 1.14     3.81 ± 1.14
    t0.8421.4430.904     1.113
    P value0.4000.1490.366     0.266
Type of hospital
    Private3.64 ± 1.064.14 ± 1.223.73 ± 1.09     3.82 ± 1.06
    Public3.80 ± 1.084.19 ± 1.163.81 ± 1.07     3.92 ± 1.04
    t1.7040.4580.831     1.067
    P value0.0890.6470.406     0.286
Hospital capacity
    ≤1003.91 ± 1.144.35 ± 1.303.93 ± 1.18     4.05 ± 1.15
    101–2503.59 ± 1.013.98 ± 1.113.67 ± 0.98     3.74 ± 0.97
    >2503.47 ± 0.944.11 ± 1.063.55 ± 1.00     3.69 ± 0.92
    F8.1125.3635.595     6.655
    P value<0.001***0.005**0.004**     0.001**
Unit of assignment
    Surgical ward3.60 ± 1.223.86 ± 1.323.57 ± 1.11     3.66 ± 1.17
    Medical ward3.64 ± 1.084.07 ± 1.203.73 ± 1.11     3.80 ± 1.06
    Gynecology/obstetric ward3.83 ± 1.024.31 ± 1.063.87 ± 1.06     3.99 ± 0.98
    Emergency unit3.84 ± 0.894.33 ± 1.053.86 ± 0.93     3.99 ± 0.89
    Intensive/critical care unit3.84 ± 1.034.58 ± 1.103.91 ± 1.11     4.09 ± 1.01
    Dialysis4.10 ± 0.864.63 ± 0.784.35 ± 0.95     4.34 ± 0.79
    Outpatient4.26 ± 0.734.68 ± 1.084.42 ± 0.84     4.44 ± 0.83
    Operating room3.79 ± 0.724.05 ± 0.963.97 ± 0.81     3.93 ± 0.75
    Pediatrics unit3.39 ± 1.123.93 ± 1.313.43 ± 1.08     3.57 ± 1.11
    F1.8223.0552.506     2.507
    P value0.0700.002**0.011*     0.011*

Note: SD, standard deviation.

*P < 0.05,

**P < 0.01,

***P < 0.001.

Table 3 includes results of the multiple linear regression analysis to determine the predictors of work engagement. Independent variables included nurses’ position, type of work contract, type of hospital, and hospital capacity. The dependent variable was nurse work engagement, which consisted of vigor, dedication, and absorption subscales. Statistically significant positive predictors of the vigor subscale included position (β = 0.400, P = 0.003) and type of hospital (β = 0.233, P = 0.019). Staff nurses working in private hospitals were more likely to report a high rating in the vigor subscale. Conversely, the type of work contract (β = −0.282, P = 0.010), hospital bed capacity of 101–250 (β = −0.289, P = 0.004), and hospitals with >250 beds (β = −0.380, P = 0.002) were significant negative predictors of vigor. Nurses with permanent employment status working in hospitals with higher patient capacity were more likely to report low scores in the vigor subscale. The statistically significant positive predictor of dedication was position (β = 0.431, P = 0.005), with staff nurses more likely to report high scores in the dedication subscale. The negative predictors of dedication were type of contract (β = −0.228, P = 0.048) and hospital bed capacity of 101–250 (β = −0.385, P = 0.001). Nurses with permanent employment status working in hospitals with bed capacity of 101–250 were more likely to report low scores in the dedication subscale. The positive predictor of absorption and overall work engagement was position (β = 0.577, P = <0.001; β = 0.503, P = <0.001, respectively), while negative predictors were hospital bed capacity of 101–250 (β = −0.265, P = 0.008; β = −0.315, P = 0.001) and bed capacity of >250 (β = −0.351, P = 0.005; β = −0.334, P = 0.007, respectively). This indicates that staff nurses were more likely to report high scores in the absorption subscale and overall work engagement while nurses working in hospitals with higher bed capacity were more likely to report low ratings of absorption and overall work engagement. However, the range of variation in scores in the models was narrow at only 3.8%–5.5%.

Multiple linear regression analysis for the predictors of work engagement

Dependent variablesIndependent variablesBSE95% CIP-value
VigoraConstant (α)  3.465  0.251  2.972–3.959<0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse  0.400  0.134  0.136–0.663  0.003
Type of work contract (permanent = reference)
Casual/part time−0.282  0.109−0.497 to −0.068  0.010
Type of hospital (Private = reference)
Public  0.233  0.099  0.038–0.428  0.019
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250−0.289  0.100−0.486 to −0.092  0.004
>250−0.380  0.124−0.624 to −0.136  0.002
DedicationbConstant (α)  4.152  0.260  3.640–4.663<0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse  0.431  0.152  0.133–0.729  0.005
Type of contract (permanent = reference)
Casual/part time−0.228  0.115−0.455 to −0.002  0.048
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250−0.385  0.111−0.604 to −0.166  0.001
>250−0.194  0.140−0.469 to 0.081  0.166
AbsorptioncConstant (α)  3.274  0.167  2.946–3.601<0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse  0.577  0.134  0.315–0.840<0.001
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250−0.265  0.100−0.461 to −0.068  0.008
>0250−0.351  0.126−0.599 to −0.104  0.005
Overall work engagementdConstant (α)  3.474  0.162  3.155–3.793<0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse  0.503  0.130  0.248–0.759<0.001
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250−0.315  0.097−0.507 to −0.124  0.001
>250−0.334  0.122−0.575 to −0.094  0.007

Note: CI, confidence interval; SE, standard error.

Adjusted R2 = 5.5% (F = 7.420, P < 0.001).

Adjusted R2 = 3.8% (F = 6.452, P < 0.001).

Adjusted R2 = 4.7% (F = 10.063, P < 0.001).

Adjusted R2 = 4.5% (F = 9.532, P < 0.001).

Discussion

This study identified work engagement and its predictors among hospital nurses in the Central Philippines. Generally, the findings indicate an average level of work engagement despite known work conditions in the country. A variety of nurses’ personal and organizational characteristics were observed to play a significant role in predicting engagement at work.

The level of work engagement among nurses was satisfactory, indicating that nurses were engaged “at least a few times a month.” This implied that despite the exodus of skilled Filipino nurses leaving to work abroad, the consequences of staff shortages in localities, and the various unfavorable factors in the practice environment,21,22,26 nurses remaining in the Philippines—especially staff nurses in private hospitals who were engaged at some point in time—appeared to achieve significant meaning in their jobs, a level of involvement with patients, and satisfying experiences with collegial relationships. These nurses also possessed an identifiable level of professional competencies or were able to adapt positively to the challenges of their practice environment. However, results from our samples supported lower scores in work engagement compared to findings in previous studies.12,27 The relatively low mean engagement score in our study may be related to the heavy workload, low compensation, or shortage of the nursing workforce. As underlined by study results, lower engagement may be especially prevalent among permanent nurses working in hospitals with higher bed capacity. However, some previous studies have revealed still lower mean scores than the current study;13,28 findings from these studies were attributed to similar adverse work conditions. Among work engagement dimensions, dedication had the highest mean score while vigor had the lowest. Previous studies revealed similar results,12,13 indicating that workers with high dedication but low vigor were associated with increased turnover intention.29 However, dedication is believed to be the most valuable dimension of work engagement since it positively impacts workers and the work itself.27 A worker who is dedicated values their work and views work-related adversities as challenges rather than problems.

A high level of work engagement among nurses promotes positive work outcomes while reducing negative work outcomes. Work engagement is affected by various factors. Our study revealed that personal factors such as age, years in nursing, years in current unit, and work position were significant predictors of overall work engagement and of the engagement dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Previous studies confirmed that the significant relationship of age to engagement was supported by the career development theory, which posits that nurses aged 25 years and younger are in the exploration stage of career development while those aged >40 years are in the stable stage and are therefore more likely to exhibit engagement and positive involvement in their organizations.13,30 Further, previous study findings were consistent with our study with regard to the positive relationship between work engagement and years in nursing, years in current unit, and work position.12,31 Work experience increases as age advances; nurses with more years of employment are able to leverage their experience and are more adept at fulfilling tasks responsibly, which in turn promotes engagement at work.12 Hospital bed capacity and the type of work contract were negative predictors of engagement. Patient occupancy in Filipino hospitals—especially those in the public healthcare sector—commonly exceeds the ideal capacity of hospitals, leading to heavy workloads, burnout, and, seemingly, reduced work engagement among nurses. However, our findings supported that nurses in private hospitals exhibited positive work engagement, which may be attributable to a more ideal practice environment or a lighter workload compared with those working in government hospitals. In addition, nurses with more work experience were more likely to acquire permanent employment status. Nurses with more work tenure are more inclined to perform tasks and clinical procedures professionally and confidently.14 Gender, marital status, location of work, highest education attained, and length of last shift were not significant predictors of work engagement. These findings were contrary to previous studies demonstrating that gender,12 education,11 marital status,27 and location of work were significant predictors.32 However, Simpson11 further underlined that work shift had no significant relationship to a nurse’s work engagement, consistent with the present study.

Our findings established that the personal and organizational factors of hospital nurses influenced and predicted their level of work engagement and further demonstrated the applicability of the JD–R model, thus highlighting the significance of identifying and understanding the relationship between nurses’ engagement at work, their work setting, and their personal characteristics is critical. Our results further underline that the work engagement of nurses is not driven exclusively by the nurses themselves but is influenced broadly by the organization, the practice environment, and the health care system. Hence, hospital and nursing administration must develop and implement strategies to promote nurses’ personal and professional status and enhance supportive and cohesive interaction at work—thereby strengthening work engagement.

Conclusions

We investigated the predictive role of the personal and organizational characteristics of Filipino nurses in their level of work engagement. To our knowledge, this is the first study involving a large number of participants that explored work engagement and its predictors. Study findings demonstrated that Filipino nurses are satisfactorily engaged at work. The dedication score was the highest in the three dimensions of engagement. Significant relationships existed between a nurse’s age, years of experience in nursing, years in their present unit, and their position and work engagement overall and the specific dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Hospital bed capacity was a negative predictor of vigor, dedication, absorption, and overall work engagement. Likewise, the type of nursing contract was a negative predictor of vigor and dedication.

Multiple linear regression analysis for the predictors of work engagement

Dependent variables Independent variables B SE 95% CI P-value
Vigora Constant (α)   3.465   0.251   2.972–3.959 <0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse   0.400   0.134   0.136–0.663   0.003
Type of work contract (permanent = reference)
Casual/part time −0.282   0.109 −0.497 to −0.068   0.010
Type of hospital (Private = reference)
Public   0.233   0.099   0.038–0.428   0.019
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250 −0.289   0.100 −0.486 to −0.092   0.004
>250 −0.380   0.124 −0.624 to −0.136   0.002
Dedicationb Constant (α)   4.152   0.260   3.640–4.663 <0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse   0.431   0.152   0.133–0.729   0.005
Type of contract (permanent = reference)
Casual/part time −0.228   0.115 −0.455 to −0.002   0.048
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250 −0.385   0.111 −0.604 to −0.166   0.001
>250 −0.194   0.140 −0.469 to 0.081   0.166
Absorptionc Constant (α)   3.274   0.167   2.946–3.601 <0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse   0.577   0.134   0.315–0.840 <0.001
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250 −0.265   0.100 −0.461 to −0.068   0.008
>0250 −0.351   0.126 −0.599 to −0.104   0.005
Overall work engagementd Constant (α)   3.474   0.162   3.155–3.793 <0.001
Position (staff nurse = reference)
Manager nurse   0.503   0.130   0.248–0.759 <0.001
Hospital capacity (100 = reference)
101–250 −0.315   0.097 −0.507 to −0.124   0.001
>250 −0.334   0.122 −0.575 to −0.094   0.007

Correlations between nurse characteristics and work engagement (M ± SD).

Characteristics Vigor Dedication Absorption Overall job engagement
Gender
    Male 3.78 ± 1.11 4.12 ± 1.27 3.78 ± 1.16      3.88 ± 1.12
    Female 3.68 ± 1.06 4.18 ± 1.18 3.75 ± 1.06      3.85 ± 1.03
    t 0.855 0.457 0.269      0.235
    P value 0.393 0.648 0.788      0.814
Age (years)
    r 0.171 0.112 0.133      0.147
    P value <0.001*** 0.008** 0.002**      0.001**
Years in nursing
    r 0.165 0.107 0.149      0.149
    P value <0.001*** 0.012* <0.001***      <0.001***
Years on present unit
    r 0.113 0.069 0.090      0.096
    P value 0.008** 0.105 0.035*      0.024*
Marital Status
    Unmarried 3.80 ± 1.14 4.21 ± 1.29 3.83 ± 1.15      3.94 ± 1.13
    Married 3.66 ± 1.03 4.14 ± 1.15 3.73 ± 1.05      3.82 ± 1.01
    t 1.477 0.676 1.093      1.154
    P value 0.140 0.500 0.275      0.249
Work location
    Urban 3.68 ± 1.05 4.15 ± 1.19 3.73 ± 1.07      3.84 ± 1.04
    Rural 3.78 ± 1.13 4.20 ± 1.22 3.87 ± 1.14      3.93 ± 1.10
    t 0.915 0.346 1.204      0.879
    P value 0.361 0.730 0.229      0.380
Highest education attained
    BSN 3.68 ± 1.05 4.14 ± 1.18 3.72 ± 1.07      3.83 ± 1.04
    MA/MS/PhD 3.97 ± 1.19 4.42 ± 1.31 4.18 ± 1.15      4.18 ± 1.16
    t 1.836 1.555 2.871      2.210
    P value 0.067 0.120 0.004**      0.027*
Position
    Staff nurse 3.64 ± 1.07 4.10 ± 1.22 3.68 ± 1.08      3.79 ± 1.06
    Manager nurse 4.10 ± 0.99 4.59 ± 0.96 4.27 ± 0.95      4.30 ± 0.90
    t 3.415 3.860 4.372      4.380
    P value 0.001** <0.001*** <0.001***      <0.001***
Type of contract
    Permanent 3.77 ± 1.05 4.24 ± 1.20 3.81 ± 1.05      3.92 ± 1.04
    Casual/part-time 3.52 ± 1.09 3.97 ± 1.17 3.62 ± 1.16      3.69 ± 1.07
    t 2.437 2.349 1.786      2.339
    P value 0.015* 0.019* 0.075      0.020*
Last shift length (h)
    <10 3.74 ± 0.99 4.23 ± 1.13 3.80 ± 1.03      3.91 ± 0.97
    ≥10 3.66 ± 1.15 4.08 ± 1.27 3.71 ± 1.14      3.81 ± 1.14
    t 0.842 1.443 0.904      1.113
    P value 0.400 0.149 0.366      0.266
Type of hospital
    Private 3.64 ± 1.06 4.14 ± 1.22 3.73 ± 1.09      3.82 ± 1.06
    Public 3.80 ± 1.08 4.19 ± 1.16 3.81 ± 1.07      3.92 ± 1.04
    t 1.704 0.458 0.831      1.067
    P value 0.089 0.647 0.406      0.286
Hospital capacity
    ≤100 3.91 ± 1.14 4.35 ± 1.30 3.93 ± 1.18      4.05 ± 1.15
    101–250 3.59 ± 1.01 3.98 ± 1.11 3.67 ± 0.98      3.74 ± 0.97
    >250 3.47 ± 0.94 4.11 ± 1.06 3.55 ± 1.00      3.69 ± 0.92
    F 8.112 5.363 5.595      6.655
    P value <0.001*** 0.005** 0.004**      0.001**
Unit of assignment
    Surgical ward 3.60 ± 1.22 3.86 ± 1.32 3.57 ± 1.11      3.66 ± 1.17
    Medical ward 3.64 ± 1.08 4.07 ± 1.20 3.73 ± 1.11      3.80 ± 1.06
    Gynecology/obstetric ward 3.83 ± 1.02 4.31 ± 1.06 3.87 ± 1.06      3.99 ± 0.98
    Emergency unit 3.84 ± 0.89 4.33 ± 1.05 3.86 ± 0.93      3.99 ± 0.89
    Intensive/critical care unit 3.84 ± 1.03 4.58 ± 1.10 3.91 ± 1.11      4.09 ± 1.01
    Dialysis 4.10 ± 0.86 4.63 ± 0.78 4.35 ± 0.95      4.34 ± 0.79
    Outpatient 4.26 ± 0.73 4.68 ± 1.08 4.42 ± 0.84      4.44 ± 0.83
    Operating room 3.79 ± 0.72 4.05 ± 0.96 3.97 ± 0.81      3.93 ± 0.75
    Pediatrics unit 3.39 ± 1.12 3.93 ± 1.31 3.43 ± 1.08      3.57 ± 1.11
    F 1.822 3.055 2.506      2.507
    P value 0.070 0.002** 0.011*      0.011*

Descriptive statistics of nurse work engagement.

Characteristics n Range Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Vigor 549 5.00 1.00 6.00 3.70 1.06
Dedication 549 5.00 1.00 6.00 4.16 1.19
Absorption 549 5.00 1.00 6.00 3.75 1.08
Total engagement 549 5.00 1.00 6.00 3.85 1.05
Valid n (listwise) 549

Taghipour A, Dezfuli ZK. Designing and testing a model of antecedents of work engagement. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci. 2013;84:149–154. Taghipour A Dezfuli ZK . Designing and testing a model of antecedents of work engagement . Procedia—Soc Behav Sci. 2013 ; 84 : 149 154 . 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.526 Search in Google Scholar

Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3:71–92. Schaufeli WB Salanova M González-romá V Bakker AB . The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach . J Happiness Stud. 2002 ; 3 : 71 92 . 10.1023/A:1015630930326 Search in Google Scholar

Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach. Ann Rev Org Psychol Org Behav. 2014;1:389–411. Bakker AB Demerouti E Sanz-Vergel AI . Burnout and work engagement: the JD–R approach . Ann Rev Org Psychol Org Behav. 2014 ; 1 : 389 411 . 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235 Search in Google Scholar

Molero Jurado M del M, Pérez-Fuentes M del C, Barragán Martín AB, Gázquez Linares JJ, Oropesa Ruiz NF, Simón Márquez M del M. Emotional intelligence components as predictors of engagement in nursing professionals by sex. Healthcare. 2020;8:42. Molero Jurado M del M Pérez-Fuentes M del C Barragán Martín AB Gázquez Linares JJ Oropesa Ruiz NF Simón Márquez M del M . Emotional intelligence components as predictors of engagement in nursing professionals by sex . Healthcare. 2020 ; 8 : 42 . 10.3390/healthcare8010042715115232098453 Search in Google Scholar

de Los Santos JAA, Labrague LJ. Job engagement and satisfaction are associated with nurse caring behaviours: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29:2234–2242. de Los Santos JAA Labrague LJ . Job engagement and satisfaction are associated with nurse caring behaviours: a cross-sectional study . J Nurs Manag. 2021 ; 29 : 2234 2242 . 10.1111/jonm.1338434021940 Search in Google Scholar

Brooks Carthon JM, Hatfield L, Plover C, et al. Association of nurse engagement and nurse staffing on patient safety. J Nurs Care Qual. 2019;34:40–46. Brooks Carthon JM Hatfield L Plover C et al. Association of nurse engagement and nurse staffing on patient safety . J Nurs Care Qual. 2019 ; 34 : 40 46 . 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000334626383029889724 Search in Google Scholar

Keyko K, Cummings GG, Yonge O, Wong CA. Work engagement in professional nursing practice: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;61: 142–164. Keyko K Cummings GG Yonge O Wong CA . Work engagement in professional nursing practice: a systematic review . Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 ; 61 : 142 164 . 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.06.00327351831 Search in Google Scholar

Kutney-Lee A, Germack H, Hatfield L, et al. Nurse engagement in shared governance and patient and nurse outcomes. J Nurs Adm. 2016;46:605–612. Kutney-Lee A Germack H Hatfield L et al. Nurse engagement in shared governance and patient and nurse outcomes . J Nurs Adm. 2016 ; 46 : 605 612 . 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000412511765627755212 Search in Google Scholar

van Bogaert P, van Heusden D, Timmermans O, Franck E. Nurse work engagement impacts job outcome and nurse-assessed quality of care: model testing with nurse practice environment and nurse work characteristics as predictors. Front Psychol. 2014;5:1261. van Bogaert P van Heusden D Timmermans O Franck E . Nurse work engagement impacts job outcome and nurse-assessed quality of care: model testing with nurse practice environment and nurse work characteristics as predictors . Front Psychol. 2014 ; 5 : 1261 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01261423020325431563 Search in Google Scholar

Sohrabizadeh S, Sayfouri N. Antecedents and consequences of work engagement among nurses. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014;16:e16351. Sohrabizadeh S Sayfouri N . Antecedents and consequences of work engagement among nurses . Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014 ; 16 : e16351 . 10.5812/ircmj.16351432996125763212 Search in Google Scholar

Simpson MR. Predictors of work engagement among medical-surgical registered nurses. West J Nurs Res. 2009;31:44–65. Simpson MR . Predictors of work engagement among medical-surgical registered nurses . West J Nurs Res. 2009 ; 31 : 44 65 . 10.1177/019394590831999318612088 Search in Google Scholar

Lepistö S, Alanen S, Aalto P, et al. Healthcare professionals’ work engagement in Finnish university hospitals. Scand J Caring Sci. 2018;32:979–986. Lepistö S Alanen S Aalto P et al. Healthcare professionals’ work engagement in Finnish university hospitals . Scand J Caring Sci. 2018 ; 32 : 979 986 . 10.1111/scs.1253828994454 Search in Google Scholar

Wan Q, Zhou W, Li Z, Shang S, Yu F. Work engagement and its predictors in registered nurses: a cross-sectional design. Nurs Health Sci. 2018;20:415–421. Wan Q Zhou W Li Z Shang S Yu F . Work engagement and its predictors in registered nurses: a cross-sectional design . Nurs Health Sci. 2018 ; 20 : 415 421 . 10.1111/nhs.1242429682890 Search in Google Scholar

Cao X, Chen L. The impact of empathy on work engagement in hemodialysis nurses: The mediating role of resilience. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2020;17:e12284. Cao X Chen L . The impact of empathy on work engagement in hemodialysis nurses: The mediating role of resilience . Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2020 ; 17 : e12284 . 10.1111/jjns.1228431359610 Search in Google Scholar

Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22:309–328. Bakker AB Demerouti E . The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art . J Manag Psychol. 2007 ; 22 : 309 328 . 10.1108/02683940710733115 Search in Google Scholar

Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev Int. 2008;13:209–223. Bakker AB Demerouti E . Towards a model of work engagement . Career Dev Int. 2008 ; 13 : 209 223 . 10.1108/13620430810870476 Search in Google Scholar

Vander Elst T, Cavents C, Daneels K, et al. Job demands–resources predicting burnout and work engagement among Belgian home health care nurses: a cross-sectional study. Nurs Outlook. 2016;64:542–556. Vander Elst T Cavents C Daneels K et al. Job demands–resources predicting burnout and work engagement among Belgian home health care nurses: a cross-sectional study . Nurs Outlook. 2016 ; 64 : 542 556 . 10.1016/j.outlook.2016.06.00427427405 Search in Google Scholar

Dayrit MM, Lagrada LP, Picazo OF, Pons MC, Villaverde MC. The Philippines Health System Review; 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274579/9789290226734-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed March 2, 2022. Dayrit MM Lagrada LP Picazo OF Pons MC Villaverde MC . The Philippines Health System Review ; 2018 . https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274579/9789290226734-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed March 2, 2022. Search in Google Scholar

Srinivasan K, Samuel UA. Psychological problem factors faced by staff nurses working in hospitals. IOSR-JHSS. 2014;19:1–4. Srinivasan K Samuel UA . Psychological problem factors faced by staff nurses working in hospitals . IOSR-JHSS. 2014 ; 19 : 1 4 . 10.9790/0837-19320104 Search in Google Scholar

Marcus K, Quimson G, Short SD. Source country perceptions, experiences, and recommendations regarding health workforce migration: a case study from the Philippines. Hum Resour Health. 2014;12:62. Marcus K Quimson G Short SD . Source country perceptions, experiences, and recommendations regarding health workforce migration: a case study from the Philippines . Hum Resour Health. 2014 ; 12 : 62 . 10.1186/1478-4491-12-62423051825361523 Search in Google Scholar

Castro-Palaganas E, Spitzer DL, Kabamalan MMM, et al. An examination of the causes, consequences, and policy responses to the migration of highly trained health personnel from the Philippines: The high cost of living/leaving—a mixed method study. Hum Resour Health. 2017;15:25. Castro-Palaganas E Spitzer DL Kabamalan MMM et al. An examination of the causes, consequences, and policy responses to the migration of highly trained health personnel from the Philippines: The high cost of living/leaving—a mixed method study . Hum Resour Health. 2017 ; 15 : 25 . 10.1186/s12960-017-0198-z537467828359313 Search in Google Scholar

Falguera CC, De Los Santos JAA, Galabay JR, et al. Relationship between nurse practice environment and work outcomes: a survey study in the Philippines. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021;27:e12873. Falguera CC De Los Santos JAA Galabay JR et al. Relationship between nurse practice environment and work outcomes: a survey study in the Philippines . Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 ; 27 : e12873 . 10.1111/ijn.1287332677223 Search in Google Scholar

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Utrecht work engagement scale: preliminary manual. Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht. 2003;26. Schaufeli WB Bakker AB . Utrecht work engagement scale: preliminary manual. Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University , Utrecht . 2003 ; 26 . 10.1037/t76451-000 Search in Google Scholar

Fong TC, Ng SM. Measuring engagement at work: validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Int J Behav Med. 2012;19:391–397. Fong TC Ng SM . Measuring engagement at work: validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale . Int J Behav Med. 2012 ; 19 : 391 397 . 10.1007/s12529-011-9173-6342245121681564 Search in Google Scholar

Ho Kim W, Park JG, Kwon B. Work engagement in South Korea. Psychol Rep. 2017;120:561–578. Ho Kim W Park JG Kwon B . Work engagement in South Korea . Psychol Rep. 2017 ; 120 : 561 578 . 10.1177/003329411769708528558613 Search in Google Scholar

Labrague LJ, Gloe DS, McEnroe-Petitte DM, Tsaras K, Colet PC. Factors influencing turnover intention among registered nurses in Samar Philippines. Appl Nurs Res. 2018;39:200–206. Labrague LJ Gloe DS McEnroe-Petitte DM Tsaras K Colet PC . Factors influencing turnover intention among registered nurses in Samar Philippines . Appl Nurs Res. 2018 ; 39 : 200 206 . 10.1016/j.apnr.2017.11.02729422159 Search in Google Scholar

Aboshaiqah AE, Hamadi HY, Salem OA, Zakari NM. The work engagement of nurses in multiple hospital sectors in Saudi Arabia: a comparative study. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24:540–548. Aboshaiqah AE Hamadi HY Salem OA Zakari NM . The work engagement of nurses in multiple hospital sectors in Saudi Arabia: a comparative study . J Nurs Manag. 2016 ; 24 : 540 548 . 10.1111/jonm.1235626749246 Search in Google Scholar

Wang X, Liu L, Zou F, Hao J, Wu H. Associations of occupational stressors, perceived organizational support, and psychological capital with work engagement among Chinese female nurses. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:5284628. Wang X Liu L Zou F Hao J Wu H . Associations of occupational stressors, perceived organizational support, and psychological capital with work engagement among Chinese female nurses . Biomed Res Int. 2017 ; 2017 : 5284628 . 10.1155/2017/5284628526680928168198 Search in Google Scholar

Van Bogaert P, Wouters K, Willems R, Mondelaers M, Clarke S. Work engagement supports nurse workforce stability and quality of care: nursing team-level analysis in psychiatric hospitals. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2013;20:679–686. Van Bogaert P Wouters K Willems R Mondelaers M Clarke S . Work engagement supports nurse workforce stability and quality of care: nursing team-level analysis in psychiatric hospitals . J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2013 ; 20 : 679 686 . 10.1111/jpm.1200422962847 Search in Google Scholar

Gary D, Liu X. Human Resource Management. Beijing: Renmin University Press; 2012 (in Chinese). Gary D Liu X . Human Resource Management. Beijing : Renmin University Press ; 2012 (in Chinese). Search in Google Scholar

Bamford M, Wong CA, Laschinger H. The influence of authentic leadership and areas of worklife on work engagement of registered nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2013;21:529–540. Bamford M Wong CA Laschinger H . The influence of authentic leadership and areas of worklife on work engagement of registered nurses . J Nurs Manag. 2013 ; 21 : 529 540 . 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01399.x23406200 Search in Google Scholar

Sawatzky JA, Enns CL. Exploring the key predictors of retention in emergency nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2012;20:696–707. Sawatzky JA Enns CL . Exploring the key predictors of retention in emergency nurses . J Nurs Manag. 2012 ; 20 : 696 707 . 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01355.x22823226 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD