Influencing Factors of Humanistic Care Ability in Mental Health Workers: an Online Cross-Sectional Study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1057790/v2

Abstract

Background Mental health workers may face more obstacles in humanistic care during the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to explore the humanistic care ability of mental health workers and its potential influencing factors.

Method(s) An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among 262 mental health workers working in Chongqing, China from December 1 to 31, 2020. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from the participants.

Results Mental health workers’ humanistic care ability score was 186.47 ± 21.34, and most of the them (79.8%) were at a low level. Psychological capital and personality traits were significant influencing factors of humanistic care ability and its sub-dimensions.

Conclusion(s) Research has found that the humanistic care ability of mental health workers is at a low level, and psychological capital and personality traits are significant factors influencing the humanistic care ability and its sub-dimensions. Interventions to improve psychological capital of mental health workers or to promote the change of personality traits that they want are recommended, thereby promoting humanistic practice.

1. Background

Humanistic care is the ability to listen to the needs and desires of patients, understand patients' emotions, communicate with patients, and feel the value of life to develop therapeutic relationships [1]. It emphasizes caring and caring for the ‘whole person’, that is, knowing the physical, cognitive, psychological, emotional, social and spiritual dimensions of a person, as compared with the narrow focus on the physical elements of disease that often dominates medical practice [2]. Humanistic care ability significantly affects the professional performance of medical staffs, the quality of patient’s life [3, 4], and the costs and outcomes of health care [5, 6]. Therefore, the entire health system emphasizes the need to promote humanistic caring, including in the clinical field, education, management, and public policies [7]. For example, in 2010, the Ministry of Health of China launched the ‘High-Quality Nursing Service’ project in the national health system, requiring clearly that the "patient-centered" service concept and humanistic care should be integrated into the clinical work [8]. In 2016, "Healthy China 2030" planning outline once again clarified "strengthen the humanistic care of medical services, and build a harmonious doctor-patient relationship [9]. It can be seen that the humanistic care ability of medical staff is an indispensable component of their professional practice. Medical staffs need to integrate the value of the individual, care, warmth and compassion into the daily care work [10, 11] to better develop humanistic care ability and maintain humanistic practices. 

Although the importance of humanistic care is emphasized both in theory and policy, and some education and training programs have been proposed in previous studies [12, 13], medical staff have not been able to translate these results into daily clinical work, and their humanistic care ability are still at a relatively low level [14]. One of the reasons for this result is that various clinical challenges, such as time constraints, work-related and personal stress, organizational culture and burnout [15]. Notably, these challenges may be more significant during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the field of mental healthcare. The direct impact of the virus and measures such as lockdown restrictions have caused huge psychological problems among different sub-populations, including confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients [16], mental patients [17], the general public and medical staff [18]. Deng et al [18] also noted that the mental health of the general population has a tendency of deterioration after the peak of the epidemic. This increases the need for mental health services. Mental health workers are facing more workload and pressure. Patients and their relatives may receive less attention or humanistic care from these institutions and their staffs, which is not conducive to their full recovery. Furthermore, some specific stressors in mental healthcare settings, such as stigma [19], higher frequency of violence [20], under-funding for mental health services [21] and insufficient of professional institutions and practitioners [22] have also hindered the humanistic care practices of mental health workers. 

In psychiatric services, the quality of therapeutic relationship has a significant impact upon the therapeutic outcomes of patients [23]. It is increasingly important to focus on and cultivate the humanistic care ability of mental health workers, and to integrate the "patient-centered" service concept and humanistic care into the clinical work. However, during the pandemic, researchers have mostly focused on the mental health of mental health workers and seem to pay less attention to humanistic care ability. The purpose of this study is to explore the humanistic care ability of mental health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, clarify its broader influencing factors, and provide a new direction for improving the spirit of humanistic care in mental health services.

2. Methods

2.1 Design and participants

This study has an online cross-sectional design. Snowball sampling was used to select mental health workers working at different levels of hospitals in Chongqing, China between December 1 and 30, 2020. Only mental health workers who were registered and had obtained a qualification certificate were enrolled in this study. The G*Power 3.1.9.2 program was used to estimate the sample size. A sample size of 164 was required to obtain a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15) for multiple linear regression analysis, at a two-sided significance threshold of 0.01 and a power (1 − β) of 0.99. The sample size required for the study was at least 181 based on the 10% dropout rate.

2.2 Measurements

Humanistic care ability was assessed with the Chinese version of the Caring Ability Inventory (CAI) [24], which has three dimensions: cognition, courage and patience. The total score of CAI > 220.3, 220.3–203.1 and < 203.1 indicates high, medium and low caring ability, respectively. The Cronbach's α in this study was 0.852.

Psychological capital was assessed with the Chinese version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-24) [25], which consists of four sub-scales: self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism. The higher the total score, the higher the level of psychological capital. The Cronbach's α in this study was 0.933.

Personality traits were assessed with the 48-item EPQ-RSC [26]. This scale includes 4 dimensions: psychoticism, neuroticism, extroversion and lie. The score norm of each sub-scale is: psychoticism 2.73 ± 2.05, extroversion 7.50 ± 2.84, neuroticism 4.42 ± 2.95, lie 6.19 ± 2.96. This study focused only on the first three sub-scales. The EPQ-RSC has well-established psychometric properties and is suitable for the measurement of the personality traits of Chinese adults.

Participants’ social-demographic variables included hospital level, hospital nature, professional category, gender, age, marital status, education level, work years, work shift, self-perceived work pressure, practice environment satisfaction, salary satisfaction and work-family conflict.

2.3 Data collection

Questionnaires were distributed by managers to workers via the department's We-Chat group, which is one of the most widely used social networking software in China. All items were mandatory to select an answer to prevent missing data. To avoid duplication, each phone IP address could be used only once to visit and complete the survey. Surveys with suspected unreal answers (obvious logic contradictions, all answers the same to different questions) were excluded before data analysis. Of the 298 returned questionnaires, 262 questionnaires were effective for analysis, and the effective return rate was 87.9%.

2.4 Data analysis

SPSS version 25.0 was used to analyse the data. Descriptive statistics are reported as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviations. The differences in caring ability among participants with social-demographic characteristics were tested using the independent-samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationships between humanistic care ability and the continuous variables, including age, work years, psychological capital and three independent dimensions of personality traits. Independent variables with statistical significance in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analyses. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify the influencing factors of humanistic care ability. Statistical significance for all analyses was set to p < 0.05 (2-tailed).

2.5 Ethical considerations

Ethics approval was granted by the hospitals' ethical review boards. Informed consent to participate to this study was embedded in the online survey administered to the participants, in which participation in the survey means consent to participate.

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive Characteristics

The participants were between 21 and 59 (35.16 ± 8.16) years old, and the number of years worked ranged from 1 to 41, with a mean score of 12.12 (SD 9.04). Most of the participants were female (75.6%), were married (75.2%), and had an undergraduate degree or above (74.4%). The majority of mental health workers came from Grade A hospitals and specialist hospitals, at 73.3% and 89.3%, respectively. In terms of professional category, nurses accounted for 64.5% of participants, which was noteworthy. Most participants were on work shifts (70.6%). 42.7% and 25.2% experienced high work pressure and work-family conflict, respectively. More details are shown in table 1.

The mean scores of the humanistic care ability, cognition, courage, patience, psychological capital, psychoticism, extroversion, neuroticism was 186.47 (±21.34), 74.44 (±10.73), 54.29 (±9.92), 57.74 (±7.34), 79.37 (±13.96), 1.98 (±1.52), 7.65 (±2.86), 5.09 (±3.51), respectively, as shown in table 2. Most of the mental health workers experienced a low level of humanistic care ability (79.8%).  

3.2 T-tests or one-way ANOVAs of humanistic care ability in relation to categorical variables

Practice environment satisfaction, salary satisfaction and work-family conflict were significantly associated with humanistic care ability (p<0.05). Practice environment satisfaction and salary satisfaction were significantly associated with cognition (p<0.05). Work pressure, practice environment satisfaction and work-family conflict were significantly associated with courage (p<0.05). Work shift was significantly associated with patience (p<0.05). The above results are shown in table 1.

3.3 Correlation analysis of humanistic care ability in relation to continuous variables

The correlation analysis showed that psychological capital was significantly associated with humanistic care ability (overall: r = 0.573, p<0.05; cognition: r = 0.595, p<0.05; courage: r = 0.236, p<0.05; patience: r = 0.477, p<0.05). Psychoticism was significantly associated with humanistic care ability (overall: r = -0.411, p<0.05; cognition: r = -0.328, p<0.05; courage: r = -0.252, p<0.05; patience: r = -0.376, p<0.05). Extroversion was significantly associated with humanistic care ability (overall: r = 0.387, p<0.05; cognition: r = 0.335, p<0.05; courage: r = 0.305, p<0.05; patience: r = 0.221, p<0.05). Neuroticism was significantly associated with humanistic care ability (overall: r = -0.337, p<0.05; cognition: r = -0.272, p<0.05; courage: r = -0.323, p<0.05; patience: r = -0.146, p<0.05). As shown in table 2.

3.4 Multiple linear regression of the influencing factors of mental health workers’ humanistic care ability

In multiple linear regression analysis, humanistic care ability and its three dimensions were the dependent variables, and all possible predictors (p <0.05 in univariate analysis) were entered as independent variables. Table 3 shows the result of multiple regression analysis. In the model of overall caring ability, psychological capital, psychoticism, extroversion, and neuroticism were identified as significant influencing factors (all p < 0.05), explaining 46.5% of the variance. Psychological capital, psychoticism and extroversion were influencing factors of the cognition (41.7% of the variance); psychoticism, extroversion, and neuroticism were influencing factors of the courage (24.1% of the variance); psychological capital and psychoticism were influencing factors of the patience (31.2% of the variance).

4. Discussion

In this study, we explored the level of humanistic care ability of mental health workers and its potential influencing factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

We found that 79.8% of mental health workers have a low level of humanistic care ability, which is consistent with previous studies [12, 14]. Although medical education and clinical practice pay more and more attention to integrate the concept of humanistic care into personal ability development and clinical work practices (such as the establishment of patient-doctor relationship, patient treatment and rehabilitation, and colleague relations, etc.), and some progress has been made, but it is undeniable that drug therapy is still the subject of mental health [2, 27, 28]. In addition, Létourneau et al. [27] also pointed out that the doctors or nurses who have just entered the clinic may voice their desire to provide humane care and maintain the ideal of humanistic practice, but perhaps because of work overload or fear of crossing the ‘professional boundaries’ due to “too close” to their patient. There is a distance between their desire and practice, which hinders the further development of humanistic care ability. It must be mentioned that the “coercion” in psychiatry perpetuates power imbalances in care relationships, causes mistrust, exacerbates stigma and discrimination, which may cause service users to hide their true feelings and needs [23]. Health workers may become emotionally indifferent due to long-term care of patients with abnormal cognitive function, thus neglecting the patient's personality, dignity and satisfaction of needs. Therefore, it is difficult for mental health workers to establish a relationship of mutual trust with patients and conduct active and effective communication. Finally, during the COVID-19 pandemic, medical staff are faced with more work pressure, workload and burnout [29]. They are often powerless and difficult to achieve humane care. Previous studies [15, 30] have also pointed out that to maintain the humanistic spirit and practice, it is necessary to reduce work-related stress and burnout.

Interestingly, demographic variables in this study did not predict the humanistic care ability of mental health workers in every dimension, and work characteristics including work shift, work pressure, practice environmental satisfaction, salary satisfaction, work-family conflicts were not statistically significant after entering linear regression. This is different from previous studies. In a previous study [14], there were statistical differences in the humanistic care ability and sub-dimension scores of medical staff of different ages, education levels, and hospital levels. Although we cannot provide evidence-based reasons for this finding, we speculate that it may be due to the impact of the epidemic, such as changes in the working environment and priorities, service restructuring, remote counseling, measures to control infection risk, anxiety, depression and other negative emotions, and high workload [31], which caused mental health workers to have no time to take care of humanities during this period. Furthermore, the complexity of the healthcare environment, sample differences may also contribute to this result. In follow-up research, this may need to be further confirmed.

This research provides new directions for cultivating the humanistic care ability of mental health workers, that is, improving the level of psychological capital or adopting intervention measures to promote the change of personality traits that individuals want. psychological capital has a positive impact on the overall humanistic care ability and cognition, and patience. psychological capital is a positive psychological state during an individuals’ growth and development [32]. It can help individuals adapt to changing demands and demonstrate emotional stability when faced with adversity [32, 33]. Medical staff with high levels of psychological capital are more inclined to calmly and confidently solve the obstacles in the humane care process, and constantly seek the development of self-care ability. Meantime, they are more patient to explore the needs of themselves and others, and give care and support to the care recipients. In addition, previous studies have explored the positive effects of psychological capital, such as preventing burnout and reducing the negative effects of work pressure [34]. In other words, psychological capital can also indirectly promote the development of humanistic care ability.

Personality traits affect the individual's unique perception and response to the external environment, leading to different results. In this study, psychoticism has a negative impact on the overall humanistic care ability and three sub-dimensions; neuroticism is a negative factor for the overall humanistic care ability and courage; extroversion is a positive factor for the overall humanistic care ability, cognition, and courage. Extroverts are usually positive and optimistic. They are easy to build harmonious and stable interpersonal relationships at work, and communicate effectively with patients or colleagues [35], so as to understand the real needs of the care recipients. In addition, extroverts tend to view work positively, and are more courageous and responsible when solving various problems in the workplace. They are also more likely to feel more happiness, and this significantly predicts provision of spiritual care to patients [36]. People with high psychoticism scores may lack sympathy, carelessness or unkindness to others at work, and cannot integrate well into society or interpersonal relationships. For them, it may be difficult to establish emotional and interpersonal relationships with patients, and to listen to the patients' inner needs, or they may not have the patience to do this. People with high neuroticism scores are emotionally unstable and prone to negative emotional reactions such as anxiety. Their ability to withstand stress is weakened, and tend to amplify the importance of certain situations, thereby experiencing a higher degree of work overload [35], which hinders their humanistic practice to some extent. Also, neurotic medical workers tend to accumulate negative emotions and produce irrational thinking. They do not have the courage or ability to deal with unknown challenges and provide caring behaviors for patients.

This study has several limitations. First, we collected the data in a specific area, and whether the results can be generalized to other healthcare systems or territories with a different epidemic situation may need to be further verified by multi-center and large-sample studies in the future. Secondly, the cross-sectional design limits the inferences of causal relationships among the variables, and further longitudinal research may be required. Finally, self-report questionnaires, the results may be biased.

5. Conclusions

Our research investigated mental health workers’ humanistic care ability during the COVID-19 pandemic and explored possible influencing factors. Research has found that the humanistic care ability of mental health workers is at a low level, and psychological capital and personality traits are significant factors influencing the humanistic care ability and its sub-dimensions. Mental health workers with high humanistic care ability can provide effective, high-quality clinical practice, which is conducive to improving patient satisfaction, reducing work pressure, and building a harmonious patient-doctor relationship. Therefore, interventions to improve psychological capital of mental health workers or to promote the change of personality traits that they want are recommended, thereby promoting humanistic practice.  

Declarations

6.1 Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Chongqing Mental Health Centre (Ethics approval number: 2021-001). Informed consent to participate to this study was embedded in the online survey administered to the participants, in which participation in the survey means consent to participate.

6.2 Consent for publication

Not applicable.

6.3 Availability of data and materials

The data sets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

6.4 Competing interest

No conflict.

6.5 Funding  

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

6.6 Author contributions

Material preparation and data collection were performed by Liu and Zhu. Zhu performed the analysis of the data and Liu wrote the manuscript text. Reviews and modifications of the manuscript were conducted by Liu and Zhu.

6.7 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the mental health workers very much for having given us their valuable time and data.

References

  1. Rogers CR. The Foundations of the Person-Centered Approach. Dialectics and Humanism. 1981;8(1):5-16.
  2. Lee Roze des Ordons A, de Groot JM, Rosenal T, Viceer N, Nixon L. How clinicians integrate humanism in their clinical workplace-'Just trying to put myself in their human being shoes'. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(5):318-24.
  3. Aupia A, Lee TT, Liu CY, Wu SV, Mills ME. Caring behavior perceived by nurses, patients and nursing students in Indonesia. J Prof Nurs. 2018;34(4):314-19.
  4. Cheng L, Liu Y, Ke Y, Wang W. Comparison of Caring Ability Between Chinese and American Nursing Students. West J Nurs Res. 2017;39(2):290-304.
  5. Hung CA, Wu PL, Liu NY, Hsu WY, Lee BO, Pai HC. The effect of gender-friendliness barriers on perceived image in nursing and caring behaviour among male nursing students. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(9-10):1465-72.
  6. Edmundson E. The quality caring nursing model: a journey to selection and implementation. J Pediatr Nurs. 2012;27(4):411-5.
  7. Blais R, Brousseau S. A Humanistic Caring Quality of Work Life Model in Nursing Administration Based on Watson’s Philosophy. International Journal of Human Caring. 2017;21:2-8.
  8. Wang Y, Zhang Y, Liu M, Zhou L, Zhang J, Tao H, et al. Research on the formation of humanistic care ability in nursing students: A structural equation approach. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;86:104315.
  9. General Office of the State Council P. "Healthy China 2030" plan outline. 2016 [10-25]. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2016/content_5133024.htm.
  10. Buckley J. Holism and a health-promoting approach to palliative care. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2002;8(10):505-8.
  11. Sarkis JM, Skoner MM. An analysis of the concept of holism in nursing literature. Holist Nurs Pract. 1987;2(1):61-9.
  12. Chang Z, Guan G, Chen R, Liu H, Orthopedi Cs DO, Hospital QC, et al. Analysis of nurses' humanistic care ability and its influencing factors in primary hospital. Chinese Nursing Management. 2017.
  13. Mackintosh-Franklin C. Does nurse education promote caring and compassionate practice? A discussion following documentary review of current and future undergraduate curricula. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019;36:121-4.
  14. Xu T, Wang Y, Wang R, Lamb KV, Ren D, Dai G, et al. Predictors of caring ability and its dimensions among nurses in China: A cross-sectional study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020. doi: 10.1111/scs.12941.
  15. Branch WT, Jr., Weil AB, Gilligan MC, Litzelman DK, Hafler JP, Plews-Ogan M, et al. How physicians draw satisfaction and overcome barriers in their practices: "It sustains me". Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(12):2320-30.
  16. Xiang YT, Yang Y, Li W, Zhang L, Zhang Q, Cheung T, et al. Timely mental health care for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak is urgently needed. The lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3):228-9.
  17. Sun Q, Qin Q, Basta M, Chen B, Li Y. Psychological reactions and insomnia in adults with mental health disorders during the COVID-19 outbreak. BMC psychiatry. 2021;21(1):19.
  18. Deng Y, Chen Y, Zhang B. Different prevalence trend of depression and anxiety among healthcare workers and general public before and after the peak of COVID-19 occurred in China: A meta-analysis. Asian J Psychiatr. 2021;56:102547.
  19. Catthoor K, Hutsebaut J, Schrijvers D, De Hert M, Peuskens J, Sabbe B. Preliminary study of associative stigma among trainee psychiatrists in Flanders, Belgium. World J Psychiatry. 2014;4(3):62-8.
  20. Renwick L, Lavelle M, Brennan G, Stewart D, James K, Richardson M, et al. Physical injury and workplace assault in UK mental health trusts: An analysis of formal reports. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2016;25(4):355-66.
  21. Johnson J, Hall LH, Berzins K, Baker J, Melling K, Thompson C. Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: A narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018;27(1):20-32.
  22. Zhao X, Liu L, Hu C, Chen F, Sun X. Necessity and feasibility of improving mental health services in China: A systematic qualitative review. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2017;32(3):363-71.
  23. Bacha K, Hanley T, Winter LA. 'Like a human being, I was an equal, I wasn't just a patient': Service users' perspectives on their experiences of relationships with staff in mental health services. Psychol Psychother. 2020;93(2):367-86.
  24. Juan XU, Liu Y. Investigation and Analysis of Nursing Staff's Caring Ability. Journal of Nursing Science. 2008.
  25. Luo H, Hao ZH. Reliability and validity analysis of psychological capital questionnaire in nurses. Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science. 2010;19(9):853-4.
  26. Qian MY, Wu,G.C, Zhu,R.C, Zhang S. Development of the revised eysenck personality questionnaire short scale for chinese (EPQ-RSC). Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2000;32(3):317-23.
  27. Létourneau D, Goudreau J, Cara C. Humanistic caring, a nursing competency: modelling a metamorphosis from students to accomplished nurses. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35(1):196-207.
  28. Joober R. Deconstructing the mental health crisis in only 2 pieces. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2016;41(4):222-4.
  29. Ibar C, Fortuna F, Gonzalez D, Jamardo J, Jacobsen D, Pugliese L, et al. Evaluation of stress, burnout and hair cortisol levels in health workers at a University Hospital during COVID-19 pandemic. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021;128:105213.
  30. Swendiman RA, Marcaccio CL, Han J, Hoffman DI, Weiner TM, Nance ML, et al. Attitudes and Habits of Highly Humanistic Surgeons: A Single-Institution, Mixed-Methods Study. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1027-32.
  31. Liberati E, Richards N, Willars J, Scott D, Boydell N, Parker J, et al. A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic. BMC psychiatry. 2021;21(1):250.
  32. Luthans F, Youssef CM. Human, Social and Now Positive Psychological Capital Management: Investing in People for Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics. 2004;33(2):143-60.
  33. Luthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. journal of asian economics. 2007.
  34. Kim S, Kweon Y. Psychological Capital Mediates the Association between Job Stress and Burnout of among Korean Psychiatric Nurses. Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8(3).
  35. Grigorescu S, Cazan AM, Grigorescu OD, Rogozea LM. The role of the personality traits and work characteristics in the prediction of the burnout syndrome among nurses-a new approach within predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine concept. EPMA J. 2018;9(4):355-65.
  36. Biag AD, Angeles LS, Jr. Testing the structural equation model of the influence of nurses' spiritual well-being and caring behaviour on their provision of spiritual care to patients. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29(4):822-33.

Tables

Table 1 Univariate analysis of humanistic care ability in relation to categorical variables

Variables

N (%)

Humanistic Care ability (Mean [SD])

Overall

Cognition

Courage

Patience

Gender

 

 

 

 

 

Male 

64 (24.4)

182.58 (20.66)

73.59 (10.77)

52.45 (10.19)

56.5 (7.94)

Female

198 (75.6)

187.73 (21.45)

74.72 (10.73)

54.88 (9.78)

58.1 (7.12)

Marital Status

 

 

 

 

 

Unmarried

57 (21.8)

185.40 (21.98)

72.74 (10.67)

55.47 (9.04)

57.19 (7.32)

Married

197 (75.2)

186.77 (21.50)

74.92 (10.91)

54.02 (10.26)

57.83 (7.44)

Other

8 (3.1)

186.63 (12.33)

74.75 (4.40)

52.50 (6.82)

59.38 (5.29)

Education level

 

 

 

 

 

Junior college or lower

67 (25.6)

188.31 (18.07)

75.19 (9.96)

54.43 (9.51)

58.69 (6.10)

Undergraduate degree or above

195 (74.4)

185.84 (22.36)

74.18 (11.00)

54.24 (10.08)

57.41 (7.71)

Hospital Level

 

 

 

 

 

Grade A

192 (73.3)

185.61 (20.83)

73.71 (10.55)

54.66 (9.51)

57.25 (7.20)

Grade B

49 (18.7)

192.22 (22.98)

77.59 (11.32)

54.82 (11.57)

59.82 (7.70)

Grade C

21 (8)

180.86 (20.27)

73.81 (10.13)

49.71 (8.64)

57.33 (7.26)

Hospital nature

 

 

 

 

 

General Hospital

28 (10.7)

189.68 (22.79)

77.14 (10.62)

53.29 (11.08)

59.25 (6.74)

Specialty Hospital

234 (89.3)

186.09 (21.18)

74.12 (10.72)

54.41 (9.79)

57.56 (7.40)

Professional Category

 

 

 

 

 

Nurse

169 (64.5)

186.29 (21.04)

74.40 (10.54)

54.11 (10.10)

57.79 (7.26)

Physician

80 (30.5)

186.33 (22.08)

74.33 (11.37)

54.46 (9.59)

57.54 (7.75)

Medical Technician

13 (5)

189.69 (21.96)

75.77 (9.77)

55.62 (10.16)

58.31 (6.20)

Work shift

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

185 (70.6)

185.47 (22.48)

73.87 (11.41)

54.46 (9.99)

57.14 (7.89)

No

77 (29.4)

188.87 (18.21)

75.82 (8.82)

53.87 (9.80)

59.18 (5.61) *

Work Years

 

 

 

 

 

≤5 years

65 (24.8)

188.00 (20.47)

74.34 (10.35)

55.38 (9.58)

58.28 (6.59)

6-10 years

75 (28.6)

183.89 (21.19)

73.61 (10.53)

53.39 (9.02)

56.89 (8.45)

11-15 years

58 (22.1)

183.50 (22.66)

73.60 (11.45)

52.88 (11.01)

57.02 (7.21)

≥16 years

64 (24.4)

190.63 (20.80)

76.28 (10.71)

55.52 (10.18)

58.83 (6.75)

Work Pressure

 

 

 

 

 

Low

11 (4.2)

193.36 (18.20)

80.36 (10.57)

52.27 (12.95)

60.73 (5.59)

Normal

139 (53.1)

188.53 (22.36)

75.01 (10.64)

55.83 (9.54)

57.69 (7.36)

High

112 (42.7)

183.23 (19.97)

73.16(10.69)

52.57 (9.83) *

57.50 (7.47)

Practice Environment Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

Dissatisfied

69 (26.3)

181.39 (22.29)

72.84 (11.66)

51.54 (10.49)

57.01 (7.54)

Neutral

124 (47.3)

185.85 (20.94)

73.49 (10.28)

55.10 (9.24)

57.26 (7.52)

Satisfied

69 (26.3)

192.67 (19.79) **

77.75 (9.98) *

55.59 (10.12) *

59.32 (6.67)

Salary Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

Dissatisfied

82 (31.3)

182.28 (21.95)

72.20 (11.49)

53.34 (9.93)

56.74 (7.51)

Neutral

133 (50.8)

186.77 (19.54)

74.95 (9.61)

53.91 (9.50)

57.91 (6.87)

Satisfied

47 (17.9)

192.94 (23.78) *

76.94 (11.82) *

57.02 (10.77)

58.98 (8.22)

Work-Family Conflict

 

 

 

 

 

Low

76 (29)

191.88 (21.33)

76.51 (10.64)

57.13 (9.41)

58.24 (6.98)

Normal

120 (45.8)

185.83 (21.04)

74.13 (10.31)

53.95 (10.01)

57.76 (7.39)

High

66 (25.2)

181.39 (20.77) *

72.64 (11.34)

51.64 (9.61) **

57.12 (7.72)

*P<0.05, **P<0.01, *** P<0.001. SD, standard deviation.

 

Table 2 Correlation analysis of caring ability in relation to continuous variables 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 Humanistic Care ability 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Cognition

.871**

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Courage

.602**

.182**

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Patience

.820**

.825**

.131*

1

 

 

 

 

 

5 Age

.060

.082

.004

.051

1

 

 

 

 

6 PsyCap

.573**

.595**

.236**

.477**

.053

1

 

 

 

7 P 

-.411**

-.328**

-.252**

-.376**

-.066

-.262**

1

 

 

8 E 

.387**

.335**

.305**

.221**

-.182**

.294**

-.200**

1

 

9 N 

-.337**

-.272**

-.323**

-.146*

.001

-.357**

.103

-.163**

1

Mean

186.47 

74.44

54.29

57.74

35.16

79.37

1.98

7.65

5.09

SD

21.34

10.73

9.92

7.34

8.16

13.96

1.52

2.86

3.51

PsyCap, psychological capital; P, psychoticism; E, extroversion; N, neuroticism; SD, standard deviation.

*P<0.05, **P<0.01.
 

 

Table 3 Multiple linear regression model of the influencing factors of Caring ability and three dimensions  

 

Model

 

Independent variables

 

B

 

SE

Standardized Coefficients β

 

t

 

P

 95.0% CI for β

 

F

 

P

 

R2

 

R2adj

Lower 

Upper 

Humanistic Care ability (overall)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33.208

0.000***

0.480

0.465

(Constant)

139.898

8.426

 

16.603

0.000***

123.304

156.493

 

 

 

 

Practice Environment Satisfaction 

-1.374

1.555

-.047

-.884

0.378

-4.436

1.688

 

 

 

 

Welfare Satisfaction 

1.235

1.575

.040

.784

0.434

-1.868

4.337

 

 

 

 

Work-Family Conflict 

-.526

1.383

-.019

-.380

0.704

-3.250

2.197

 

 

 

 

PsyCap

.618

.078

.411

7.901

0.000***

.464

.772

 

 

 

 

-3.846

.677

-.277

-5.684

0.000***

-5.179

-2.513

 

 

 

 

E

1.383

.354

.189

3.909

0.000***

.686

2.080

 

 

 

 

N

-.780

.298

-.130

-2.615

0.009**

-1.366

-.193

 

 

 

 

Cognition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31.911

0.000***

0.431

0.417

(Constant)

41.063

4.062

 

10.109

0.000***

33.064

49.063

 

 

 

 

Practice Environment Satisfaction 

-0.694

0.789

-0.048

-0.880

0.380

-2.247

0.860

 

 

 

 

Welfare Satisfaction 

0.780

0.818

0.052

0.954

0.341

-0.831

2.390

 

 

 

 

PsyCap

0.385

0.041

0.514

9.435

0.000***

0.304

0.465

 

 

 

 

-0.866

0.356

-0.124

-2.432

0.016*

-1.567

-0.165

 

 

 

 

0.687

0.185

0.188

3.717

0.000***

0.323

1.051

 

 

 

 

-0.104

0.152

-0.035

-0.685

0.494

-0.404

0.195

 

 

 

 

Courage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.675

0.000***

0.262

0.241

(Constant)

55.942

4.787

 

11.686

0.000***

46.514

65.370

 

 

 

 

Work pressure

-0.733

0.935

-0.045

-0.784

0.434

-2.573

1.108

 

 

 

 

Practice Environment Satisfaction 

0.106

0.752

0.008

0.141

0.888

-1.374

1.586

 

 

 

 

Work-Family Conflict 

-1.042

0.740

-0.083

-1.408

0.160

-2.500

0.416

 

 

 

 

PsyCap

0.015

.042

0.022

0.356

0.722

-0.067

0.097

 

 

 

 

-1.007

0.351

-0.166

-2.869

0.004**

-1.698

-0.316

 

 

 

 

0.863

0.186

0.268

4.632

0.000***

0.496

1.230

 

 

 

 

-0.664

0.159

-0.252

-4.184

0.000***

-0.977

-0.352

 

 

 

 

Patience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24.178

0.000***

0.325

0.312

(Constant)

39.516

2.755

 

14.341

0.000***

34.089

44.942

 

 

 

 

Work shift

0.508

0.765

0.035

0.664

0.507

-0.999

2.016

 

 

 

 

PsyCap

0.227

0.028

0.478

7.995

0.000***

0.171

0.283

 

 

 

 

-0.844

0.247

-0.185

-3.418

0.001**

-1.330

-0.358

 

 

 

 

E

0.151

0.129

0.065

1.170

0.243

-0.103

0.405

 

 

 

 

N

0.095

0.107

0.050

0.890

0.375

-0.115

0.305

 

 

 

 

PsyCap, psychological capital; P, psychoticism; E, extroversion; N, neuroticism; SD, standard deviation.

*P<0.05, **P<0.01, *** P<0.001.