Skip to main content

Advertisement

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 conditionsInterpretation
(0 = minimum value, 100 = maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(nurses = 564)
Mean (SD)
(physicians = 380)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
 Quantitative demandshigh = negative66.5 (13.5)71.9 (13.9)(942) -5.974*0.40
 Emotional demandshigh = negative64.4 (18.3)64.6 (16.5)(942) -.2020.01
 Work-privacy-conflicthigh = negative61.3 (24.4)68.7 (25.1)(942) -4.497*0.30
 Influence at workhigh = positive36.3 (17.3)38.8 (20.8)(710) -2.006*0.13
 Degree of freedom at workhigh = positive36.0 (15.9)46.2 (20.0)(687) -8.373*0.58
 Possibilities for developmenthigh = positive71.6 (15.7)79.6 (14.2)(942) -8.032*0.53
 Meaning of workhigh = positive77.7 (16.6)82.9 (16.1)(942) -4.753*0.32
 Workplace commitmenthigh = positive48.4 (18.8)61.3 (19.2)(942) -10.220*0.68
 Predictabilityhigh = positive53.3 (16.4)52.5 (19.3)(720) 0.710−0.05
 Role clarityhigh = positive73.5 (14.5)72.5 (16.5)(740) 1.027−0.07
 Role conflictshigh = negative50.6 (17.2)45.1 (18.4)(942) 4.611*−0.31
 Feedbackhigh = positive41.9 (21.0)41.0 (21.5)(942) 0.632−0.04
 Social supporthigh = positive66.7 (17.0)64.2 (17.0)(942) 2.169*−0.15
 Social relationshigh = positive45.0 (17.0)51.5 (15.1)(874) -6.194*0.40
 Sense of communityhigh = positive77.8 (15.2)76.7 (15.1)(942) 1.096−0.07
Outcome scale – Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) 
 Job satisfactionhigh = positive67.5 (10.2)73.4 (12.0)(942) -8.135*0.54
Outcome scale – Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI, adapted client-related burnout)
 Patient related burnouthigh = negative36.5 (17.6)28.0 (16.5)(942) 7.464*−0.50
LeadershipInterpretation
(0/1 = minimum value, 100/5 = maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(nurses = 543)
Mean (SD)
(physicians = 369)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI short)
 Transformational leadership5 = positive3.1 (0.8)3.2 (0.8)(910) -1.6050.13
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
 Quality of leadershiphigh = positive53.8 (22.7)49.2 (22.9)(910) 3.031*−0.20
Patient safety climateInterpretation
(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(nurses = 558)
Mean (SD)
(physicians = 373)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)
 Staffing5 = positive2.4 (0.8)2.8 (0.8)(929) -7.721*0.50
 Organizational learning5 = positive3.0 (0.7)3.1 (0.7)(762) -1.3660.14
 Communication openness5 = positive3.7 (0.6)3.4 (0.7)(758) 6.010*−0.47
 Feedback & communication about error5 = positive3.4 (0.8)3.3 (0.9)(929) 1.519−0.12
 Nonpunitive response to error5 = positive3.3 (0.8)3.5 (0.8)(929) -3.746*0.25
 Teamwork within units5 = positive3.3 (0.6)3.4 (0.6)(929) 1.3260.17
 Teamwork across units5 = positive3.0 (0.6)3.1 (0.7)(698) -3.316*0.16
 Handoffs & transitions5 = positive3.2 (0.6)2.9 (0.7)(713) 5.702*−0.47
 Supervisor/manager expectations5 = positive3.4 (0.7)3.3 (0.7)(929) 1.020−0.14
 Management support for patient safety5 = positive2.6 (0.8)3.0 (0.8)(929) -5.797*0.50
Outcome scales – Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC-D)
 Frequency of event reported5 = positive3.0 (1.1)2.9 (0.9)(874) 1.053−0.10
 Overall perceptions of patient safety5 = positive2.9 (0.7)3.3 (0.8)(929) -7.782*0.54
 Patient safety grade1 = positive2.9 (0.8)2.6 (0.7)(929) 7.456*−0.39
 Safety grade in the medication process1 = positive3.0 (0.8)2.8 (0.7)(831) 5.065*−0.26
Patient safety climateInterpretation
(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(nurses = 543)
Mean (SD)
(physicians = 369)
(df) t-value1dCohen
TWINS Patient Safety
 Supervisor support for patient safety5 = positive3.4 (0.8)3.5 (0.7)(910) -1.996*0.13
 My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital5 = positive3.3 (0.9)3.3 (1.0)(729) -0.8650.00
 My direct supervisor focuses more on patient safety than a year ago5 = positive2.8 (0.9)2.8 (1.0)(735) -0.270.00
 It is important to my direct supervisor that our hospital pays great attention to patient safety5 = positive3.4 (0.9)3.5 (0.9)(910) -1.5090.11
 Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning patient safety in our hospital5 = positive2.8 (0.8)3.0 (0.9)(910) -4.188*0.36
 Hospital management focuses more on patient safety than a year ago5 = positive2.7 (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 safety5 = positive3.0 (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 workplace1 = positive3.2 (0.9)2.9 (1.0)(910) 4.558*−0.32
Occupational safety climateInterpretation
(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(nurses = 543)
Mean (SD)
(physicians = 369)
(df) t-value1dCohen
TWINS Occupational Safety
 Supervisor support for occupational safety5 = positive3.5 (0.8)3.4 (0.8)(910) 1.050−0.13
 My direct supervisor openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital5 = positive3.3 (0.9)3.2 (0.9)(910) 0.8690.00
 My direct supervisor focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago5 = positive2.8 (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 safety5 = positive3.3 (0.9)3.2 (1.0)(910) 2.299*−0.11
 Hospital management openly addresses problems concerning occupational safety in our hospital5 = positive2.9 (0.9)3.1 (0.9)(910) -3.337*0.22
 Hospital management focuses more on occupational safety than a year ago5 = positive2.7 (0.9)2.8 (0.9)(910) -1.9360.11
 It is important to the Hospital management that our hospital pays great attention to occupational safety5 = positive2.9 (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 workplace1 = positive3.3 (0.9)3.3 (1.0)(910) .8930.00
Occupational safety climateInterpretation
(1 = minimum value, 5 = maximum value)
Mean (SD)
(nurses = 560)
Mean (SD)
(physicians = 372)
(df) t-value1dCohen
Outcome scales – self constructed indices
 Subjective assessment of specific protective measures (behaviour & regulations) related to infectious diseases1 = positive1.8 (0.6)1.8 (0.6)(930) -1.1320.00
 Subjective assessment of occupational safety measures initiated by the employer, related to own safety1 = positive1.7 (0.6)2.0 (0.6)(930) -8.328*0.50
 Personal perception of the frequency of occupational risks5 = positive3.2 (0.8)3.5 (0.7)(853) -5.608*0.39
  1. Notes: 1p-value* ≤.05