Job satisfaction in midwives working in labour ward: A systematic review with meta-analysis

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q1 NURSING

Midwifery Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2024.104112

Marta Pérez-Castejón , María Suárez-Cortés , Ismael Jiménez-Ruiz , José Antonio Jiménez-Barbero

{"title":"Job satisfaction in midwives working in labour ward: A systematic review with meta-analysis","authors":"Marta Pérez-Castejón , María Suárez-Cortés , Ismael Jiménez-Ruiz , José Antonio Jiménez-Barbero","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2024.104112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Problem</h3><p>There is little documented evidence of job satisfaction in midwives who work in birthing rooms.</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p>Job satisfaction in midwives who work in birthing rooms may have changed in recent decades due to the medicalization of maternal health.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To analyse job satisfaction levels among midwives working in birthing rooms.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched Web of Science, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CUIDEN and CINAHL for observational and mixed method studies. The literature search was carried out from September to October 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>A total of 13 studies were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of the variable “midwives’ job satisfaction” was performed on 12 of the studies. Midwives rated their job satisfaction positively: DME, CI (95%) = 1.24 [0.78, 1.69]. Subgroup 1: DME, CI (95%) = 2.41 [2.05, 2.76]); Subgroup 2: DME, CI (95%) = 0.76 [0.65, 0.86]; subgroup 3: DME, CI (95%) = 1.11 [0.95, 1.27]; subgroup 4: DME, CI (95%) = 0.10 [-0.11, 0.31].</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Although midwives show high levels of satisfaction, the heterogeneity of instruments, lack of specificity and limited number of studies found restrict the outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There are no specific measurement instruments for assessing job satisfaction among midwives working in labour wards, so it is possible that these data do not correspond to reality as they do not take into account specific professional aspects within this field of practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"137 ","pages":"Article 104112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824001955/pdfft?md5=c1d3c54fc3e91599d1d294b566a2c9a7&pid=1-s2.0-S0266613824001955-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613824001955","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem

There is little documented evidence of job satisfaction in midwives who work in birthing rooms.

Background

Job satisfaction in midwives who work in birthing rooms may have changed in recent decades due to the medicalization of maternal health.

Aim

To analyse job satisfaction levels among midwives working in birthing rooms.

Methods

We searched Web of Science, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CUIDEN and CINAHL for observational and mixed method studies. The literature search was carried out from September to October 2022.

Findings

A total of 13 studies were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of the variable “midwives’ job satisfaction” was performed on 12 of the studies. Midwives rated their job satisfaction positively: DME, CI (95%) = 1.24 [0.78, 1.69]. Subgroup 1: DME, CI (95%) = 2.41 [2.05, 2.76]); Subgroup 2: DME, CI (95%) = 0.76 [0.65, 0.86]; subgroup 3: DME, CI (95%) = 1.11 [0.95, 1.27]; subgroup 4: DME, CI (95%) = 0.10 [-0.11, 0.31].

Discussion

Although midwives show high levels of satisfaction, the heterogeneity of instruments, lack of specificity and limited number of studies found restrict the outcomes.

Conclusion

There are no specific measurement instruments for assessing job satisfaction among midwives working in labour wards, so it is possible that these data do not correspond to reality as they do not take into account specific professional aspects within this field of practice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在产房工作的助产士的工作满意度：系统回顾与荟萃分析。

问题：关于在分娩室工作的助产士的工作满意度，几乎没有文献证据：目的：分析在分娩室工作的助产士的工作满意度：我们在 Web of Science、SCOPUS、MEDLINE、CUIDEN 和 CINAHL 中检索了观察性研究和混合方法研究。文献检索时间为 2022 年 9 月至 10 月：共有 13 项研究被纳入系统综述。对其中 12 项研究的变量 "助产士的工作满意度 "进行了荟萃分析。助产士对其工作满意度给予了积极评价：DME, CI (95%) = 1.24 [0.78, 1.69]。子组 1：DME，CI (95%) = 2.41 [2.05, 2.76]）；子组 2：子组 3：DME，CI (95%) = 1.11 [0.95, 1.27]；子组 4：DME，CI (95%) = 0.10 [-0.11, 0.31]：讨论：尽管助产士的满意度很高，但由于工具的异质性、缺乏特异性以及研究数量有限，结果受到限制：结论：目前还没有专门的测量工具来评估在产房工作的助产士的工作满意度，因此这些数据可能与实际情况不符，因为它们没有考虑到这一实践领域的具体专业方面。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Midwifery 医学-护理

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

7.40%

发文量

221

审稿时长

13.4 weeks

期刊介绍： Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.