医护人员的动机、行为和医院护理质量:混合方法系统综述。

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Gepke L Veenstra, Kirsten F A A Dabekaussen, Eric Molleman, Erik Heineman, Gera A Welker
{"title":"医护人员的动机、行为和医院护理质量:混合方法系统综述。","authors":"Gepke L Veenstra, Kirsten F A A Dabekaussen, Eric Molleman, Erik Heineman, Gera A Welker","doi":"10.1097/HMR.0000000000000284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care professionals' work motivation is assumed to be crucial for the quality of hospital care, but it is unclear which type of motivation ought to be stimulated to improve quality. Motivation and similar concepts are aligned along a motivational continuum that ranges from (intrinsic) autonomous motivation to (extrinsic) controlled motivation to provide a framework for this mixed-methods systematic review.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This mixed-methods systematic review aims to link various types of health care professionals' motivation directly and through their work-related behaviors to quality of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2016. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they reported on work motivation in relationship to work behavior and/or quality, and study participants were health care professionals working in hospitals in high-income countries. Study bias was evaluated using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42016043284).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 84 out of 6,525 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Results show that health care professionals' autonomous motivation improves their quality perceptions and work-related behaviors. Controlled motivation inhibits voicing behavior, but when balanced with autonomous motivation, it stimulates core task and proactive behavior. Proactivity is associated with increased quality of care perceptions.</p><p><strong>Practice implications: </strong>To improve quality of care, policy makers and managers need to support health care professionals' autonomous motivation and recognize and facilitate proactivity as an essential part of health care professionals' jobs. Incentive-based quality improvements need to be complemented with aspects that stimulate autonomous motivation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47778,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Management Review","volume":"47 2","pages":"155-167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5b/03/hcm-47-155.PMC8876425.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health care professionals' motivation, their behaviors, and the quality of hospital care: A mixed-methods systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Gepke L Veenstra, Kirsten F A A Dabekaussen, Eric Molleman, Erik Heineman, Gera A Welker\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HMR.0000000000000284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care professionals' work motivation is assumed to be crucial for the quality of hospital care, but it is unclear which type of motivation ought to be stimulated to improve quality. Motivation and similar concepts are aligned along a motivational continuum that ranges from (intrinsic) autonomous motivation to (extrinsic) controlled motivation to provide a framework for this mixed-methods systematic review.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This mixed-methods systematic review aims to link various types of health care professionals' motivation directly and through their work-related behaviors to quality of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2016. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they reported on work motivation in relationship to work behavior and/or quality, and study participants were health care professionals working in hospitals in high-income countries. Study bias was evaluated using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42016043284).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 84 out of 6,525 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Results show that health care professionals' autonomous motivation improves their quality perceptions and work-related behaviors. Controlled motivation inhibits voicing behavior, but when balanced with autonomous motivation, it stimulates core task and proactive behavior. Proactivity is associated with increased quality of care perceptions.</p><p><strong>Practice implications: </strong>To improve quality of care, policy makers and managers need to support health care professionals' autonomous motivation and recognize and facilitate proactivity as an essential part of health care professionals' jobs. Incentive-based quality improvements need to be complemented with aspects that stimulate autonomous motivation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Management Review\",\"volume\":\"47 2\",\"pages\":\"155-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5b/03/hcm-47-155.PMC8876425.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Management Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000284\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Management Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000284","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医护人员的工作动机被认为对医院护理质量至关重要,但目前尚不清楚应激发哪种类型的动机以提高护理质量。目的:这一混合方法的系统性综述旨在将各类医护人员的工作动机直接或通过其工作相关行为与护理质量联系起来:方法:检索了 1990 年 1 月至 2016 年 8 月期间的六个数据库。如果定性和定量研究报告了工作动机与工作行为和/或质量的关系,且研究参与者为在高收入国家医院工作的医护人员,则纳入研究。研究偏倚采用《评估各领域初级研究论文的标准质量评估标准》进行评估。综述方案已在 PROSPERO 数据库(CRD42016043284)中注册:在 6525 条独特记录中,共有 84 条符合纳入标准。结果表明,医护人员的自主动机可以改善他们的质量感知和工作相关行为。受控动机会抑制发声行为,但如果与自主动机相平衡,则会刺激核心任务和主动行为。积极主动与护理质量感知的提高有关:为了提高医疗质量,政策制定者和管理者需要支持医护人员的自主动机,承认并促进积极主动是医护人员工作的重要组成部分。以激励为基础的质量改进需要辅之以激发自主动力的方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Health care professionals' motivation, their behaviors, and the quality of hospital care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Health care professionals' motivation, their behaviors, and the quality of hospital care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Health care professionals' motivation, their behaviors, and the quality of hospital care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Background: Health care professionals' work motivation is assumed to be crucial for the quality of hospital care, but it is unclear which type of motivation ought to be stimulated to improve quality. Motivation and similar concepts are aligned along a motivational continuum that ranges from (intrinsic) autonomous motivation to (extrinsic) controlled motivation to provide a framework for this mixed-methods systematic review.

Purpose: This mixed-methods systematic review aims to link various types of health care professionals' motivation directly and through their work-related behaviors to quality of care.

Methods: Six databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2016. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included if they reported on work motivation in relationship to work behavior and/or quality, and study participants were health care professionals working in hospitals in high-income countries. Study bias was evaluated using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42016043284).

Results: A total of 84 out of 6,525 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Results show that health care professionals' autonomous motivation improves their quality perceptions and work-related behaviors. Controlled motivation inhibits voicing behavior, but when balanced with autonomous motivation, it stimulates core task and proactive behavior. Proactivity is associated with increased quality of care perceptions.

Practice implications: To improve quality of care, policy makers and managers need to support health care professionals' autonomous motivation and recognize and facilitate proactivity as an essential part of health care professionals' jobs. Incentive-based quality improvements need to be complemented with aspects that stimulate autonomous motivation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Care Management Review
Health Care Management Review HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Health Care Management Review (HCMR) disseminates state-of-the-art knowledge about management, leadership, and administration of health care systems, organizations, and agencies. Multidisciplinary and international in scope, articles present completed research relevant to health care management, leadership, and administration, as well report on rigorous evaluations of health care management innovations, or provide a synthesis of prior research that results in evidence-based health care management practice recommendations. Articles are theory-driven and translate findings into implications and recommendations for health care administrators, researchers, and faculty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信