Work motivation among healthcare professionals in the Saudi hospitals Presented by Nouf Sahal...
-
Upload
coleen-newton -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Work motivation among healthcare professionals in the Saudi hospitals Presented by Nouf Sahal...
Work motivation among healthcare professionals in
the Saudi hospitals
Presented byNouf Sahal Al-
HarbiSupervised by:
Dr. Saad Al-Ghanim
2008
Introduction:
• Improving health professionals is at top priority of decision makers at all levels, including politicians, healthcare professionals and administrators.
Introduction:
• Enhancing healthcare providers motivation is an important strategy that should be acknowledged by all those involved in the provision of health care to patients.
Selected definitions
Motivation is considered to be the desired positive willingness that prompts a person to action.
Motivation is the desire to serve and perform effectively (Karabi, Peter, Karen & Marie, 2001).
According to Mariolein (2006) motivation
at work can be defined as a worker's degree of willingness to make and maintain an effort towards achieving an organization's goal.
Significance of the study
Health care organizations are characterized by unique characteristics that makes motivation an important topic for a research study. That is :
Hospitals are, by their nature, humanitarian facilities. That is, they are run and operated by human beings, their inputs are mainly human beings and their outputs are designed to be human beings as well.
Significance of the study
Therefore, health decision makers find it important to motivate those who are involved directly in the provision of health care to patients.
Significance of the study
The literature indicates that understanding what motivates and what demotivate health personnel is an important aspects of the health care administration.
Objectives of the study
To determine the extent of work motivation in Saudi hospitals.
To determine the major motivating factors for health care professional.
To determine methods of increasing motivation among health professional
This study was designed with the following objectives in mind:
Methodology
Design of the study
Data collection tool
Data analyses
This part will cover the following topics:
Design of the study
Work-related
Work-Motivation
Aspects
Personnel-related
Education-related
Financial-related
outcome
Data Collection Tool
This is a descriptive-analytical study using a self-administered questionnaire (Arabic and English versions).
Data Collection Tool
The questionnaire was designed to collect information on different variables which serve the purpose of the study..
Data Collection Tool
The questionnaire was used to find out factors influencing the motivation of health care staff in the Saudi hospitals.
Other than the demographic characteristics, the questionnaire consists of four dimensions related to health staff motivation:
Work-related aspects
Health personnel-related aspects
Education and training-related aspects
Financial and promotion aspects
Data Collection Tool
Study Population and Sample
For this study, stratified random samples of physicians and nurses and other health staff working in MOH, other governmental hospitals and private hospitals were selected to comprise the study population.
450 questionnaires were distributed and the general response rate was 80.4%.
Study Population and Sample
Percentage
Returned
Distributed
Type of Hospital
83.3 125 150 MOH hospital
90.7 136 150Other
Governmental hospital
76.3 101 150 Private
80.4 362 450 Total
Data in this study were collected between Oct. and Nov. 2007.
Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaire
A number of steps were taken into account to increase the content validity of the questionnaire. For example:
A review of the literature Comments of experts Pilot study of 30 questionnaire
Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaire
The reliability of the questions in the questionnaire were assessed using Cronbach's alpha as follows:
0.73 for work-related aspects.0.93 for personnel-related aspects 0.95 for education and training aspects0.71 for financial and promotion aspects 0.81
Data Analysis
For the purpose of this study, the following data analyses were used:
Descriptive statistics.
This includes a general description of the study sample, in terms of frequencies and percentage, and where applicable, means and standard deviation.
Data Analysis
Inferential statistics:
Mainly, ANOVA (analysis of variance) and t-test (t-test of equality of means) were employed in order to determine whether the study respondents’ responses differ according to their: Hospital type Occupation
Results
Results of Descriptive Statistics
Types of hospita ls included in the study
125 34.5
136 37.6
101 27.9
362 100.0
Ty pes o f hos p i ta lsinc luded in the s tudy
MOH
Other gov ermenta l
Priv ate
Tota l
No. o fres pondents %
Gender of respondents
153 42.3
209 57.7
362 100.0
Male
Female
Total
ValidFrequency Percent
Age of r espondents
122 34.4
129 36.3
82 23.1
22 6.2
355 100.0
A ge in groups30 or less
31-40
41-50
above 50
Total
Frequency Valid P ercent
Mean=35.88, SD=9.34
Nationality of r espondents
173 47.9
188 52.1
361 100.0
Nationality ofrespondents
S audi
Non-saudi
Total
Frequency Valid P ercent
Mar ital status
226 62.4
136 37.6
362 100.0
Marital statusMarried
Unmarried
Total
Frequency Percent
Educational level of respondents
113 31.2
193 53.3
56 15.5
362 100.0
Educational level of respondentsHigh school or diploma
Bacheoler
Pos tgraduate
Total
Frequency Percent
Experience in groups
97 27.4
110 31.1
147 41.5
354 100.0
Ex perienc e in groups5 y rs or les s
6-10
more than 10 y ears
Total
Frequenc y Valid Perc ent
Mean=11.24, SD=8.1 yrs
Occupation of respondents
90 24.9
178 49.2
94 26.0
362 100.0
Occupation ofrespondents
Physician
Nurse
Others
Total
ValidFrequency Percent
Other = Paramedical and administrative staff
Summary of mean scores of respondents
The following tables summaries responses given about each dimension of variables.
In each dimension, the aspects are ranked in descending orders. That is, they are ranked according t their importance as perceived by respondents.
The respondents were asked to report their attitudes on a number of aspects which were thought influence their motivation.
These responses were coded on a 5-point likert scale (which can be expressed as follows)
1 = none
2 = very little
3 = little
4 = much
5 = very much
Note !!!
Work-related aspects
*Mean scores: 1=none, 2=very little, 3=little, 4=much, 5=very much
3.72±1.19240
(66.9)87
(24.2) 32
(8.9)Technology available at work
3.77±0.97245
(68.2)107
(29.8) 7
(1.9)Organization climate
3.80±0.99268
(74.4)71
(19.7) 21
(5.8)Physical conditions at work
3.93±0.97277
(76.7)71
(19.7) 13
(3.6)Clearness of job description
4.15±1.08283
(78.2)62
(17.1) 17
(4.7)Stress at work
4.16±0.92302
(84.4)48
(13.4) 8
(2.2)Working hours
4.22±0.97299
(82.6)54
(14.9) 9
(2.5)Workload
4.30±0.95309
(86.3)39
(10.9) 10
(2.8)Nature of the work
Mean±SD*
Much(%)
Little(%)
None(%)Aspects
Work-related aspects
Personnel-related aspects
*Mean scores: 1=none, 2=very little, 3=little, 4=much, 5=very much
3.31±1.25175(48.6)
145(40.3)
40(11.1)
Appreciation of achievements
3.53±1.18214(60.3)
111(31.3)
30(8.5)
Authority a person is having
3.56±1.12199(55.1)
144(39.9)
18(5.0)
Participation in decision-making
3.63±1.12211(58.3)
129(35.6)
22(6.1)
Management support
3.98±1.14282(77.9)
54(14.9)
26(7.2)
Type of patients dealing with
3.99±0.86271(75.5)
84(23.4)
4(1.1)
Colleagues support
4.00±0.99277(76.7)
74(20.5)
10(2.8)
Type of staff dealing with
4.19±0.82321(89.2)
29(8.1)
10(2.8)
Relationships with colleagues
Mean±SD*Much(%)
Little(%)
None(%)
Aspects
Personal-related aspects
Training and education-related aspects
Training and education aspects
*Mean scores: 1=none, 2=very little, 3=little, 4=much, 5=very much
3.57±1.10194
(53.6)148
(40.9) 20
(5.5)
Chances for training
3.67±1.23223
(61.9)107
(29.7) 30
(8.3)
Continuous medical education
3.74±1.01228
(63.0)121
(33.4) 13
(3.6)
Accessibility to information sources
3.81±0.91243
(67.3)108
(29.9) 10
(2.8)
Availability of information
Mean±SD*
Much(%)
Little(%)
None(%) Aspects
Financial and promotion-related aspects
*Mean scores: 1=none, 2=very little, 3=little, 4=much, 5=very much
3.11±1.35146
(40.6)148
(41.1) 66
(18.3)
Chances for promotion
3.23±1.36177
(49.3)117
(32.6) 65
(18.1)
Financial incentives to staff
3.48±1.08176
(48.8)172
(47.6) 13
(3.6)
Salary
Mean±SD*Much(%)
Little(%)
None(%)
Aspects
Financial and promotion aspects
Top-5 Aspects(as perceived by respondents)
Work-related4.15±1.08Stress at work
5
Work-related4.16±0.92Working hours
4
Personnel-related4.19±0.82Relationships with colleagues
3
Work-related4.22±0.97Workload
2
Work-related4.30±0.95Nature of the work 1
DimensionMean±SDAspects No.
Top-Five Aspects influencing respondents motivation
Most aspects influencing respondents motivation relate to work aspects
A comparison between physicians and nurses
ONLY for significant variables
0.0191.0954.0690PhysicianContinuous medical education
1.2593.13176Nurse0.000
.9363.7290PhysicianAppreciation of achievements
1.4263.00175Nurse0.000
1.0563.6990PhysicianFinancial incentives to staff
1.1463.70177Nurse0.008
.9804.0889PhysicianTechnology available at work
.8694.01177Nurse0.031
.9584.2790PhysicianType of staff I am dealing with
1.1163.49178Nurse0.022
.8843.7890PhysicianChances for training
1.3602.77177Nurse0.000
1.0713.7290PhysicianChances for promotion
1.0363.36177Nurse0.016
1.0563.6990PhysicianSalary you are getting
1.2453.50175Nurse0.031
.8963.7986PhysicianAuthority you are having
.9034.30176Nurse0.000
.6564.6689PhysicianNature of the work
PS.D.MeanNOccupation Aspects
In all variables that reach a significant differences, physicians have a higher mean scores than nurses
)ONLY significant differences in the aspects are shown here(
1.06
63.
7317
6N
urse
0.01
91.
095
4.06
90P
hysi
cian
Con
tinuo
us m
edi
cal e
duca
tion
Recommendations
Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations were made:
Understanding factors influencing motivation is an important step towards better performance and stability at work for the sake of the care of patients.
Healthcare administration should pay attention to the top-five factors reported in the study. These factors relate mostly to work and personal factors.
Recommendations
Recommendations
Future research should focus on aspects which increase the motivation among health workers.
Conclusion
Employee performance is a function of motivation and competency.
To improve or maintain organization effectiveness, it is important for the administrators to know their employees and how to improve or maintain their work motivation
LIMITATIONS
Despite the benefits of this study, a number of limitations deserve mention:
LIMITATIONS
The study did not cover all hospitals, both in MOH and “other” governmental agencies. Therefore, the results are only limited to hospitals under investigations.
Further research should increase the number of hospitals in different cities in the Kingdom
LIMITATIONS
Another limitation of this study is related to the methodology used. In this research, the questionnaire is used which is not the best data collection tool.
Further research should either use interviews or focus groups with health care providers. A combination of more than one data collection tool is recommended.
LIMITATIONS
All data reported here were based on “self-reported” responses. This has a problem of bias which may have influenced the results.
Results of Inferential Statistics
ANOVA
ANOVA Results
When NOVA test was used, it has been found that there was a significant differences between the three healthcare sectors (MOH, other governmental and private sectors) in all of the aspects included in the study. This can be seen in the next slide :
ANOVA (be twe e n MOH, Othe r gov. a nd priv a te hos pita ls
2 9 .1 9 9 .0 0 0
1 8 .0 7 2 .0 0 0
4 .6 7 8 .0 1 0
2 0 .0 1 4 .0 0 0
5 .1 3 0 .0 0 6
9 .4 0 6 .0 0 0
6 .7 1 5 .0 0 1
1 0 .8 5 6 .0 0 0
3 .8 2 8 .0 2 3
6 .6 8 3 .0 0 1
4 .6 4 6 .0 1 0
7 .7 7 6 .0 0 0
5 .4 8 8 .0 0 4
1 3 .1 5 5 .0 0 0
2 6 .6 8 3 .0 0 0
5 8 .6 4 2 .0 0 0
7 .3 9 8 .0 0 1
1 5 .1 6 1 .0 0 0
1 4 .0 3 0 .0 0 0
5 .6 6 8 .0 0 4
7 .6 5 7 .0 0 1
2 7 .9 4 2 .0 0 0
2 4 .9 4 8 .0 0 0
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Be twe e n Gro u p s
Va ri a b le sNa tu re o f th e wo rk
Wo rk lo a d y o u a re d o i n g
Wo rk in g h o u rs
Au th o ri ty y o u a re h a v in g
Cle a rn e s s o f j o bd e s c ri p ti o nSa la ry y o u a re g e tt i n g
Ph y s ic a l c o n d i ti o n s a two rkMa n a g e me n t s u p p o rt
Co l l e a g u e s s u p p o rt
Re la ti o n s h ip s wi thc o l l e a g u e sCh a n c e s fo r p ro mo tio n
Ch a n c e s fo r tra in i n g
Av a i l a b i l i ty o f i n fo rma ti o n
Ac c e s s ib i l i ty toin fo rma tio n s o u rc e sStre s s a t wo rk
Ty p e o f p a ti e n ts I a md e a l i n g wi thTy p e o f s ta ff I a md e a l i n g wi thTe c h n o lo g y a v a i l a b le a two rkFin a n c i a l i n c e n ti v e s tos ta ffAp p re c i a ti o n o fa c h ie v e me n tsPa rt i c i p a ti o n i nd e c is i o n -ma k in gOrg a n i z a tio n c l ima te
Co n ti n u o u s me d i c a le d u c a ti o n
F Sig .
A closer look to the significance in the detailed outputs of the SPSS indicates that there was a significance difference between the responses of the private sector and the responses given by staff in the MOH and other governmental sectors in all aspects included in the study. This can be seen in the next tables:
Multiple Com pa ris ons
Sc h e ffe
-.3 8 * .0 0 2
-.9 1 * .0 0 0
.3 8 * .0 0 2
-.5 3 * .0 0 0
.9 1 * .0 0 0
.5 3 * .0 0 0
-.3 6 * .0 0 9
-.7 4 * .0 0 0
.3 6 * .0 0 9
-.3 9 * .0 0 6
.7 4 * .0 0 0
.3 9 * .0 0 6
(J )Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
(I) Ho s p i ta lty p eMOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
Na tu re o f th ewo rk y o u a red o in g
Wo rk lo a d y o ua re d o in g
Me a nDi ffe re n c e
(I-J ) Sig .
Th e me a n d i ffe re n c e i s s ig n i fi c a n t a t the .0 5 le v e l .*.
Sc h e f fe
-.2 0 .2 1 3
-.3 7 .0 1 0
.2 0 .2 1 3
-.1 7 .3 5 3
.3 7 .0 1 0
.1 7 .3 5 3
-.2 5 .2 0 4
-.9 4 .0 0 0
.2 5 .2 0 4
-.6 8 .0 0 0
.9 4 .0 0 0
.6 8 .0 0 0
-.0 3 .9 7 2
-.3 7 .0 1 5
.0 3 .9 7 2
-.3 4 .0 2 5
.3 7 .0 1 5
.3 4 .0 2 5
(J ) Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
(I ) Ho s p i ta l t y p eMOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
W o rk i n g h o u rs
Au th o ri ty y o ua re h a v i n g
Cl e a rn e s s o fj o b d e s c ri p t i o n
Me a nDi f fe re n c e
(I -J ) S i g .
Sc h e ffe
.2 7 .1 2 7
-.3 3 .0 6 1
-.2 7 .1 2 7
-.6 0 .0 0 0
.3 3 .0 6 1
.6 0 .0 0 0
-.11 .6 6 2
-.4 7 .0 0 2
.11 .6 6 2
-.3 6 .0 2 3
.4 7 .0 0 2
.3 6 .0 2 3
.0 3 .9 7 3
-.5 8 .0 0 0
-.0 3 .9 7 3
-.6 1 .0 0 0
.5 8 .0 0 0
.6 1 .0 0 0
(J )Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
(I) Ho s p i ta l ty p eMOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
Sa la ry y o ua re g e tt i n g
Ph y s i c a lc o n d i t i o n sa t wo rk
Ma n a g e men t s u p p o rt
Me a nDi ffe re n c e
(I-J ) Sig .
Sc heffe
-.08 .725
-.31 .027
.08 .725
-.23 .135
.31 .027
.23 .135
-.14 .377
-.39 .002
.14 .377
-.25 .062
.39 .002
.25 .062
.31 .179
-.22 .472
-.31 .179
-.53 .012
.22 .472
.53 .012
(J )Hos pi ta lty peOther
Priv ate
MOH
Priv ate
MOH
Other
Other
Priv ate
MOH
Priv ate
MOH
Other
Other
Priv ate
MOH
Priv ate
MOH
Other
(I)Hos pi ta l ty peMOH
Other
Priv ate
MOH
Other
Priv ate
MOH
Other
Priv ate
Col leaguess upport
Relations hipswithc ol leagues
Chanc es forpromotion
MeanDifferenc e
(I-J ) Sig.
Sc h e ffe
.1 0 .7 6 7
-.4 4 .0 1 0
-.1 0 .7 6 7
-.5 4 .0 0 1
.4 4 .0 1 0
.5 4 .0 0 1
-.2 3 .1 2 5
-.3 9 .0 0 5
.2 3 .1 2 5
-.1 7 .3 7 8
.3 9 .0 0 5
.1 7 .3 7 8
-.5 1 .0 0 0
-.6 1 .0 0 0
.5 1 .0 0 0
-.1 0 .7 3 7
.6 1 .0 0 0
.1 0 .7 3 7
(J ) Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
(I )Ho s p i ta lty p eMOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
Ch a n c e s fo rtra i n i n g
Av a i l a b i l i ty o fi n fo rma t i o n
Ac c e s s i b i l i ty toi n fo rma t i o ns o u rc e s
Me a nDi f fe re n c e
(I-J ) Si g .
Sc h e ffe
-.8 4 .0 0 0
-.7 7 .0 0 0
.8 4 .0 0 0
.0 7 .8 7 0
.7 7 .0 0 0
-.0 7 .8 7 0
-.7 3 .0 0 0
-1 .4 4 .0 0 0
.7 3 .0 0 0
-.7 1 .0 0 0
1 .4 4 .0 0 0
.7 1 .0 0 0
-.2 5 .111
-.5 0 .0 0 1
.2 5 .111
-.2 5 .1 6 1
.5 0 .0 0 1
.2 5 .1 6 1
(J )Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
(I)Ho s p i ta lty p eMOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
MOH
Oth e r
Pri v a te
Stre s s a t wo rk
Ty p e o fp a ti e n ts I a md e a l i n g wi th
Ty p e o f s ta ff Ia m d e a l in gwi th
Me a nDi ffe re n c e
(I-J ) Sig .
Sc he ffe
-.77 .000
-.53 .003
.77 .000
.24 .279
.53 .003
-.24 .279
.17 .581
-.71 .000
-.17 .581
-.88 .000
.71 .000
.88 .000
.11 .780
-.42 .041
-.11 .780
-.53 .005
.42 .041
.53 .005
(J )Hos p i ta lty peOthe r
Pri v a te
MOH
Priv a te
MOH
Other
Othe r
Pri v a te
MOH
Priv a te
MOH
Other
Othe r
Pri v a te
MOH
Priv a te
MOH
Other
(I)Hos p i ta lty peMOH
Other
Pri v a te
MOH
Other
Pri v a te
MOH
Other
Pri v a te
Tec hno logyav a i lab le a twork
Financ ia linc en tiv es tos ta ff
Apprec ia tion o fac h iev emen ts
MeanDi ffe renc e
(I-J ) Sig .