Skip to main content

Table 3 Descriptive statistics, results of the student’s t test and effect size comparing answers by nurses and physicians

From: Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study

Psychosocial working conditions

Interpretation

(0 = minimum value, 100 = maximum value)

Mean (SD)

(nurses = 564)

Mean (SD)

(physicians = 380)

(df) t-value1

dCohen

Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)

 Quantitative demands

high = negative

66.5 (13.5)

71.9 (13.9)

(942) -5.974*

0.40

 Emotional demands

high = negative

64.4 (18.3)

64.6 (16.5)

(942) -.202

0.01

 Work-privacy-conflict

high = negative

61.3 (24.4)

68.7 (25.1)

(942) -4.497*

0.30

 Influence at work

high = positive

36.3 (17.3)

38.8 (20.8)

(710) -2.006*

0.13

 Degree of freedom at work

high = positive

36.0 (15.9)

46.2 (20.0)

(687) -8.373*

0.58

 Possibilities for development

high = positive

71.6 (15.7)

79.6 (14.2)

(942) -8.032*

0.53

 Meaning of work

high = positive

77.7 (16.6)

82.9 (16.1)

(942) -4.753*

0.32

 Workplace commitment

high = positive

48.4 (18.8)

61.3 (19.2)

(942) -10.220*

0.68

 Predictability

high = positive

53.3 (16.4)

52.5 (19.3)

(720) 0.710

−0.05

 Role clarity

high = positive

73.5 (14.5)

72.5 (16.5)

(740) 1.027

−0.07

 Role conflicts

high = negative

50.6 (17.2)

45.1 (18.4)

(942) 4.611*

−0.31

 Feedback

high = positive

41.9 (21.0)

41.0 (21.5)

(942) 0.632

−0.04

 Social support

high = positive

66.7 (17.0)

64.2 (17.0)

(942) 2.169*

−0.15

 Social relations

high = positive

45.0 (17.0)

51.5 (15.1)

(874) -6.194*

0.40

 Sense of community

high = positive

77.8 (15.2)

76.7 (15.1)

(942) 1.096

−0.07

Outcome scale – Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)

 

 Job satisfaction

high = positive

67.5 (10.2)

73.4 (12.0)

(942) -8.135*

0.54

Outcome scale – Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI, adapted client-related burnout)

 Patient related burnout

high = negative

36.5 (17.6)

28.0 (16.5)

(942) 7.464*

−0.50

Leadership

Interpretation

(0/1 = minimum value, 100/5 = maximum value)

Mean (SD)

(nurses = 543)

Mean (SD)

(physicians = 369)

(df) t-value1

dCohen

Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI short)

 Transformational leadership

5 = positive

3.1 (0.8)

3.2 (0.8)

(910) -1.605

0.13

Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)

 Quality of leadership

high = positive

53.8 (22.7)

49.2 (22.9)

(910) 3.031*

−0.20

Patient safety climate

Interpretation

(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)

Mean (SD)

(nurses = 558)

Mean (SD)

(physicians = 373)

(df) t-value1

dCohen

Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)

 Staffing

5 = positive

2.4 (0.8)

2.8 (0.8)

(929) -7.721*

0.50

 Organizational learning

5 = positive

3.0 (0.7)

3.1 (0.7)

(762) -1.366

0.14

 Communication openness

5 = positive

3.7 (0.6)

3.4 (0.7)

(758) 6.010*

−0.47

 Feedback & communication about error

5 = positive

3.4 (0.8)

3.3 (0.9)

(929) 1.519

−0.12

 Nonpunitive response to error

5 = positive

3.3 (0.8)

3.5 (0.8)

(929) -3.746*

0.25

 Teamwork within units

5 = positive

3.3 (0.6)

3.4 (0.6)

(929) 1.326

0.17

 Teamwork across units

5 = positive

3.0 (0.6)

3.1 (0.7)

(698) -3.316*

0.16

 Handoffs & transitions

5 = positive

3.2 (0.6)

2.9 (0.7)

(713) 5.702*

−0.47

 Supervisor/manager expectations

5 = positive

3.4 (0.7)

3.3 (0.7)

(929) 1.020

−0.14

 Management support for patient safety

5 = positive

2.6 (0.8)

3.0 (0.8)

(929) -5.797*

0.50

Outcome scales – Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)

 Frequency of event reported

5 = positive

3.0 (1.1)

2.9 (0.9)

(874) 1.053

−0.10

 Overall perceptions of patient safety

5 = positive

2.9 (0.7)

3.3 (0.8)

(929) -7.782*

0.54

 Patient safety grade

1 = positive

2.9 (0.8)

2.6 (0.7)

(929) 7.456*

−0.39

 Safety grade in the medication process

1 = positive

3.0 (0.8)

2.8 (0.7)

(831) 5.065*

−0.26

Patient safety climate

Interpretation

(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)

Mean (SD)

(nurses = 543)

Mean (SD)

(physicians = 369)

(df) t-value1

dCohen

TWINS Patient Safety

 Supervisor support for patient safety

5 = positive

3.4 (0.8)

3.5 (0.7)

(910) -1.996*

0.13

 My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital

5 = positive

3.3 (0.9)

3.3 (1.0)

(729) -0.865

0.00

 My direct supervisor focuses more on patient safety than a year ago

5 = positive

2.8 (0.9)

2.8 (1.0)

(735) -0.27

0.00

 It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety

5 = positive

3.4 (0.9)

3.5 (0.9)

(910) -1.509

0.11

 Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital

5 = positive

2.8 (0.8)

3.0 (0.9)

(910) -4.188*

0.36

 Hospital management focuses more on patient safety than a year ago

5 = positive

2.7 (0.9)

2.8 (0.9)

(910) -2.758*

0.12

 It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety

5 = positive

3.0 (1.0)

3.2 (1.0)

(784) -3.698*

0.20

Do you have an individual influence on how well patient safety is implemented at the workplace

1 = positive

3.2 (0.9)

2.9 (1.0)

(910) 4.558*

−0.32

Occupational safety climate

Interpretation

(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)

Mean (SD)

(nurses = 543)

Mean (SD)

(physicians = 369)

(df) t-value1

dCohen

TWINS Occupational Safety

 Supervisor support for occupational safety

5 = positive

3.5 (0.8)

3.4 (0.8)

(910) 1.050

−0.13

 My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital

5 = positive

3.3 (0.9)

3.2 (0.9)

(910) 0.869

0.00

 My direct supervisor focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago

5 = positive

2.8 (0.9)

2.7 (0.9)

(910) 0.628

−0.11

 It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety

5 = positive

3.3 (0.9)

3.2 (1.0)

(910) 2.299*

−0.11

 Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital

5 = positive

2.9 (0.9)

3.1 (0.9)

(910) -3.337*

0.22

 Hospital management focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago

5 = positive

2.7 (0.9)

2.8 (0.9)

(910) -1.936

0.11

 It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety

5 = positive

2.9 (0.9)

3.1 (1.0)

(766) -2.720*

0.21

 Do you have an individual influence on how well occupational safety is implemented at the workplace

1 = positive

3.3 (0.9)

3.3 (1.0)

(910) .893

0.00

Occupational safety climate

Interpretation

(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)

Mean (SD)

(nurses = 560)

Mean (SD)

(physicians = 372)

(df) t-value1

dCohen

Outcome scales – self constructed indices

 Subjective assessment of specific protective measures (behaviour & regulations) related to infectious diseases

1 = positive

1.8 (0.6)

1.8 (0.6)

(930) -1.132

0.00

 Subjective assessment of occupational safety measures initiated by the employer, related to own safety

1 = positive

1.7 (0.6)

2.0 (0.6)

(930) -8.328*

0.50

 Personal perception of the frequency of occupational risks

5 = positive

3.2 (0.8)

3.5 (0.7)

(853) -5.608*

0.39

  1. Notes: 1p-value* ≤.05