https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0203-308X
Figures
Abstract
Background
Given the global shortage of midwives, it is of utmost interest to improve midwives’ job satisfaction and working environments. Precise measurement tools are needed to identify both predictors of job satisfaction and intervention strategies which could increase it. The aim of this study is to collate, describe and analyse instruments used in research to assess the job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals, to identify valid and reliable tools and to make recommendations for the further development of specific instruments for midwifery practice and future midwifery research.
Methods
We conducted systematic literature searches of the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database. Studies which assessed the job satisfaction of midwives working in a hospital setting were eligible for inclusion.
Findings
Out of 637 records 36 empirical research articles were analysed, 27 of them cross-sectional studies. The studies had been conducted in 23 different countries, with sample sizes ranging between nine and 5.446 participants. Over 30 different instruments were used to measure midwives’ job satisfaction, with considerable differences in terms of domains evaluated and number of items. Twelve domains relevant for job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals were identified from the empirical studies. Four instruments met the defined reliability and validity criteria.
Conclusion
Autonomy, the significance of the job, the challenges of balancing work and private life, and the high emotional and physical demands of midwifery are job characteristics which are underrepresented in instruments measuring job satisfaction. The influence of the physical working environment has also not yet been researched. There is a need to develop or adapt instruments to the working environment of midwives.
Citation: Wangler S, Streffing J, Simon A, Meyer G, Ayerle GM (2022) Measuring job satisfaction of midwives: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 17(10): e0275327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275327
Editor: Negash Wakgari, Ambo University, ETHIOPIA
Received: April 13, 2022; Accepted: September 14, 2022; Published: October 13, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Wangler et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Maternity care in hospitals is highly dependent on the midwifery workforce in many countries. However, the worsening global shortage of midwives and resultant vacant positions in labour wards puts the quality of care for mothers, babies and their families at risk [1, 2]. Job satisfaction of midwives and other health care personnel is an important factor influencing not only personal wellbeing, commitment and workforce retention but also work performance and outcomes. Improving midwives’ job satisfaction is one intervention to keep midwives in the profession and counteract midwife shortages [3–5].
Job satisfaction is described as a comprehensive concept made up of various components, with overall satisfaction being the cumulative result of these components [6]. The relationship between components of job satisfaction and overall job satisfaction is explained in several job satisfaction theories. The Job Characteristic Model by Hackman and Oldham [7] and Herzberg’s two factor theory [8], both belonging to the motivational approach, describe the important role of intrinsic aspects (individual needs for growth, development and the meaningfulness of the work) in job satisfaction. Humphrey et al. explore this motivational approach in more depth, emphasising the importance of social characteristics (support, interaction) and work context (work environment, ergonomics, noise) [9].
Research has identified several approaches to improving the job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals. Important motivators which positively influence midwives’ job satisfaction are support within the team, good relationships with colleagues [1, 10–12], appreciation and support from superiors [2, 13–15], autonomy, meaningfulness of the work, interaction with women, and being able to support normal birth [3, 5, 16–19]. Factors which reduce job satisfaction are heavy workload, lack of staff and resources, conflicts in work-life balance and low salary [4, 14, 16, 20–22].
Valid and psychometrically sound measuring instruments are needed to evaluate intervention strategies designed to improve job satisfaction and the working environment.
Numerous instruments exist, in particular questionnaires, developed through research on job satisfaction in organisational psychology—some for jobs in general, others for specific jobs [6, 23]. Most questionnaires assess job satisfaction multi-dimensionally, looking at several components, others measure global job satisfaction [24]. There is no common standard as to which work aspects or dimensions should be considered or which questionnaire should be used [24]. Our aim therefore is to collate, describe and analyse instruments used in research to assess the job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals, to identify valid and reliable tools, and to make recommendations both for the further development of instruments specific to midwifery practice and for future midwifery research.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review in order to explore the extent of the literature in the field of midwifery job satisfaction and to examine how research in this field is conducted. Scoping reviews aim to identify and map available evidence on an area of research in a transparent way [25–27]. They bring together the evidence from heterogeneous sources and study approaches and can therefore detect research gaps in the existing literature [26, 28]. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s Methodological Guidance [29] was followed, based on work by Arksey and O’Malley [26]. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to structure this article [30].
Eligibility criteria
We included journal publications of studies in English or German which quantitatively or qualitatively assessed the job satisfaction of midwives working in a hospital setting. In order to obtain recent and transferable results, we limited the time period to studies that had been published from 2010 onwards. The study sample had to include at least 50% midwives. Studies focusing mainly on such concepts as burnout, work engagement or stress, rather than job satisfaction, were excluded. Also excluded were studies which focused on the situation of midwifery trainees/students, as they often have a different perspective. Instruments for which no validation study could be found were excluded.
Sources of information and search
We conducted a systematic literature search including database searches (CINAHL, MEDLINE via Pubmed, PsycINFO via Ovid, Web of science core collection, and Cochrane Database), free web searching and backward and forward citation. The ‘Population, Concept, Context’ (PCC) Criteria (according to the Prisma-ScR [30]) were used to develop the search string. The search terms used were midwife, midwives, midwifery AND hospital, obstetric, ward, unit, department, obstetrical. They were combined using AND with synonyms for the concept of job satisfaction: job satisfaction, quality of work life, work satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and with synonyms for the data assessment: questionnaire, instrument, scale, measurement, assessment, appraisal, evaluation, interview and focus group (see S1 File).
Selection of sources and data charting process
One reviewer (SW) designed and conducted the search strategy supported by the second reviewer (GMA). Two reviewers (SW, JS) independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for inclusion. A data extraction sheet for the compilation of content was created by SW following the JBI manual [29]. The characteristics extracted included: country, study design and objectives, context, population and sample size, with a focus on tools measuring midwives’ job satisfaction. The instruments were assessed based on the following key information: type of instrument, theoretical background, dimensions and items, response scales, reliability and validity. If the items or information about the questionnaire were not listed in the article, their development and validation studies were procured for further data extraction.
Assessment of reliability and validity
The reliability of the instrument was assessed by means of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). An instrument with an internal consistency coefficient of 0.80 or higher was considered good [31].
To find out whether the instruments were applicable to midwives in hospitals, we checked whether the entire construct of job satisfaction was represented (content validity). The domains identified by Van Saane et al. [24] in a systematic review were followed and compared with the factors found in the systematic literature search. Content validity was rated satisfactory if the instrument covered at least seven of twelve domains.
Results
Search and study selection
The search yielded a total of 626 records. After removing duplicates, all articles (n = 499) were transferred to the Covidence tool for systematic reviews [32] and screened using the above-mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 96 full text articles were reviewed, and subsequently 60 further papers excluded, leaving 36 for further review and data extraction (Fig 1).
Study characteristics
Characteristics, such as origin of the studies, publication year, and sample sizes in total are summarised in Table 1. Table 2 presents the included studies, their study design samples and objectives. Of the 36 publications, 27 research papers are descriptive and cross-sectional studies, two are longitudinal observational studies, two mixed-method studies and five are qualitative studies. In the quantitative studies, the average number of participants was 576 and ranged from 43 to 5.446. In the qualitative studies, the average number of participants was 16 and ranged from nine to 26.
Characteristics of the construct midwives’ job satisfaction
The authors Van Saane et al. designate job characteristics which form the basis for the construct job satisfaction in general [24]. They categorise those job characteristics in eleven domains: work content, autonomy, growth/development, financial rewards, promotion, supervision, communication, co-workers, meaningfulness, workload, and work demands. These domains were confirmed by our literature search. The domains co-workers, meaningfulness, work content, autonomy and workload proved to be very important for midwives [4, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 35, 38, 41, 43, 44, 52]. Due to overlap of the domains communication and co-workers, and of development and promotion, we combined these domains into working relationships and growth/development. However, three other factors which influence midwives’ job satisfaction emerged from the papers reviewed which were not represented in the domains identified so far. One factor is the physical working environment of midwives in the hospital (in terms of materials and equipment, as well as the influence of atmosphere and room design) [17, 18, 34, 36], a second is staff health [10, 42, 45]. Furthermore, the aspect of work-life balance appeared to be important for midwives and influenced their job satisfaction [11, 16, 39, 40]. We added these factors and assessed the content validity of the instruments using 12 domains (Fig 2).
Instruments
In total, 35 different instruments were identified in the included studies. Researchers often combined up to six different assessment instruments by supplementing generic questionnaires with questionnaires examining related constructs of job satisfaction [1, 2, 10, 14, 33, 35, 38, 40, 46, 47, 50]. All studies used self-administered questionnaires as preferred research tools, with items rated on Likert Scales (4- to 7-point Likert Scales). The number of items varied considerably, ranging from 20 to 77, especially if different instruments were used. The tools can be divided into three categories: 1) Global job satisfaction instruments, 2) Multi-dimensional (faceted) job satisfaction instruments, and 3) Instruments measuring (single) components of job satisfaction.
1) Global instruments.
Global instruments consider job satisfaction to be a global construct and ask directly about general feelings about the job to assess employees’ overall job satisfaction, either in a single-or multiple-item version [53]. Only two of the instruments used in the studies reviewed were global instruments: The ‘Satisfaction with Work Scale’ (SWWS, developed by Diener et al. [54]) and the ‘Overall Job Satisfaction Scale’ (OJS, designed by Brayfield & Rothe [55]). They each used five items to assess global job satisfaction. Both are generic instruments with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 for SWWS [21] and 0.93 for OJS [41, 46], indicating good reliability for use with midwives. Both instruments were used in combination with single component instruments.
2) Multi-dimensional (faceted) instruments.
Multi-dimensional or faceted instruments aggregate multiple items to different facets of job satisfaction. Faceted instruments represent the multi-dimensionality of the construct job satisfaction well [53]. Each facet may be presented with a single or multiple items. Multi-dimensional instruments allow statements about the influence of single items/facets of job satisfaction or their correlation with it. 13 of the instruments presented were facet instruments, but they were heterogeneous in terms of the facets they depicted and the number of items. Table 3 gives an overview of these multi-dimensional instruments, their frequency of application, the theoretical foundation, reliability in the specific application of midwifery, the target group and the number of items and subscales. Those instruments with good reliability are printed in bold in the table. Table 4 depicts their content validity, instruments with good reliability and content validity in bold.
One tool was developed specifically for midwives: the Midwifery Process Questionnaire [68], focusing on midwives’ view of their professional role. However, neither of the studies which used this questionnaire reported Cronbach’s alpha for reliability [5, 39]. The following four instruments met the criteria for reliability and content validity and are therefore described in more detail. Two are generic instruments and two are instruments developed for the nursing profession.
Generic instruments. Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (MSQ-SF) and Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS).
Talasaz et al. [50] used the MSQ-SF, developed by Weiss et al. 1967 [61]. It measures job satisfaction on 20 facets, each with only one item, using a 4-point Likert response scale (1 = ‘very dissatisfied’ to 4 = ‘very satisfied’). The MSQ-SF is a generic instrument that has been used for over 30 years in a wide range of jobs and is available in many languages [69]. The MSQ-SF classifies satisfaction as related to either extrinsic or intrinsic aspects of the job. The items are summed up to identify overall satisfaction. It covers nine of the twelve domains outlined above, the missing items being work-life balance, physical work environment and health.
Casey et al. [35] measured job satisfaction using the Warr, Cook, Wall Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS, 1979). It is a generic and widely used instrument with 17 items, each with a response range from 1 (‘I’m extremely dissatisfied’) to 7 (‘I’m extremely satisfied’). Warr et al. regard job satisfaction as employees’ satisfaction with intrinsic and extrinsic factors of the job [59]. Nine categories are represented, but the physical environment is represented with only one item. Items about meaningfulness and health are missing.
Instruments for the nursing profession. Leiden Quality of Work Life Questionnaire for Nurses (LQWLQ–N) and McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale (MMSS).
Cronie et al., Perdok et al. and Grylka-Baeschlin et al. used the LQWLQ–N version [57] to assess job satisfaction [20, 39, 44]. This questionnaire is a specific version for nurses based on the generic Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire [70], which measures the key concepts of the Job Demand-Control-Support model [58]. Cronie et al. reformulated the questions for maternity care professionals [20]. Job conditions were measured with 77 items in 10 subscales on a 4-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (‘totally disagree’) to 4 (‘totally agree’). One of the subscales with six items focuses directly on job satisfaction calculated as a mean of these six items. The other subscales represent the domains personnel and organisation, work demands and tasks, autonomy, social support at work, working relationships, workplace agreements and referrals, potential for development, financial reward, influence of work on private life. Only the categories meaningfulness and health are not represented.
Bekru et al. [11], Alnuaimi et al. [1], and Jarosova et al. [40] used the MMSS, developed in 1990, for measuring job satisfaction among nurses. It contains 31 items in eight subscales and responses are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘very dissatisfied’) to 5 (‘very satisfied’). It is one of the most widely used scales in nursing research, in a variety of clinical and geographical settings [40]. The subscales are satisfaction with extrinsic rewards, scheduling, family-work balance, co-workers, interactions, professional opportunities, praise and recognition, control and responsibility. The domains meaningfulness, work content, physical work environment and health are missing.
3) Component instruments.
Component instruments are defined as tools that measure (single) components of the construct job satisfaction or related concepts. 17 studies used component scales. Researchers combined different instruments or selected particular items from questionnaires and added either a multi-dimensional instrument or an item on overall job satisfaction. More than 20 different component scales (see Table 5) were used, measuring for example social support at work, organisational support, work engagement, work climate, organisational commitment, psychological empowerment, work stress, social provision and health. The instruments had up to four subscales and between four and 37 items. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was between 0.75 and 0.93. One of these instruments (the Midwifery Practice Climate Scale) was developed to measure midwives’ perceptions of the supportiveness of their work environments. The other scales were generic or developed for hospital staff.
Discussion
A large number of studies have been published on the job satisfaction of midwives working in hospitals in different countries since 2010. A great variety of instruments was identified with various dimensions and combinations of items and instruments. In particular, a large number of questionnaires measuring related constructs, such as stress at work, organisational commitment or work engagement was found. Almost all research teams used a different instrument or combination of instruments, some slightly adapted to midwifery practice. Three of the instruments were used in three different studies: the McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale (MMSS), the Leiden Quality of Work Life Questionnaire for Nurses (LQWLQ-N) and the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work (PES-NWI). The Midwifery Process Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPOQ) were each used twice.
The variety of instruments used suggests that none satisfactorily covers all domains of midwives’ job satisfaction in the hospital. This is also confirmed by the results of our literature search. While the dimensions work demands, workload, working relationships, financial rewards, development and supervision are included in almost all questionnaires, other dimensions are underrepresented. Although the research findings show the importance of autonomy and the significance of the job for the satisfaction of midwives, items reflecting these (meaningfulness and autonomy) are missing in several questionnaires. The significance of these intrinsic aspects is well described in theories of job satisfaction [8, 9].
Another important dimension is the balance between work and private life. The combination of shift work in the hospital setting and frequent overtime due to staff shortages could lead to a work-life imbalance resulting in reduced job satisfaction [1, 16]. This dimension was only examined in four questionnaires. As personal wellbeing affects job satisfaction, and vice versa, it is important this is reflected in instruments measuring job satisfaction. Aspects such as mental health and physical disorders still play a minor role in questionnaires but seem to be a significant factor influencing job satisfaction in midwifery practice. On the one hand, midwifery work can be physically challenging, resulting in musculoskeletal disorders which subsequently lead to reduced job satisfaction [42, 45]. On the other hand, physical and mental overload and dissatisfaction in the job can lead to health impairments and even burnout [10, 45]. Moreover, items relating to the physical working environment also play a minor role in questionnaires used in the studies reviewed. Apart from items about provision of equipment and facilities [12], no items were identified which assessed the influence of the birthing room environment on midwives’ job satisfaction. Qualitative research data suggest that the design of the labour room influences the work of midwives, as different designs create different atmospheres which affect midwives’ wellbeing [17, 34, 36]. While the influence of the architecture and design of the birthing room on women giving birth has already been qualitatively researched [71–73], no quantitative studies were identified which assessed the environment’s influence on maternity care staff.
Two questionnaires applied the broadest approach in terms of construct completeness. The COSPOQ, which explored eleven dimensions, missing only financial rewards, and the MJSI which didn’t include the dimension physical work environment. The internal consistency of the construct was not reported for the COSPOQ when used in study samples of midwives and the Cronbach’s alpha was only acceptable (0.71) for the MJSI [31]. The LQWLQ-N also almost showed content completeness, missing only the categories meaningfulness and health.
In contrast to global satisfaction instruments or component scales, the strength of multi-dimensional instruments is to represent the whole construct of job satisfaction and determine the satisfaction in different domains. Thus, they identify correlations between the domains and may be an effective method for detecting changes in job satisfaction after interventions.
In addition to the completeness of the construct, the number of items is an important factor in the selection of a suitable instrument, and varies significantly in the instruments presented here. It should be critically noted that the larger the number of items, the greater the administrative effort and personal burden for users, so in-depth instruments may not be appropriate to measure job satisfaction on a regular basis. Most of the study instruments were translated from English into different languages and transferred from the Anglo-Saxon culture to other cultures without cultural adaptation, which may lead to decreased validity [74]. Consequently, the translation and validation process needs to apply not only linguistic adaptations, but instruments may well need to be adapted to the maternity care system in each particular country in a culturally appropriate manner.
Reliability characteristics were mentioned in most of the articles and we identified instruments with good reliability for use with midwives working in hospitals. Unfortunately, test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change, which would be important to reflect the impact of interventions, were rarely, if at all, reported.
Future research should address all domains of midwives’ job satisfaction to detect alternative opportunities for interventions to increase job satisfaction and midwives’ intention to stay in the profession. It is hoped that this scoping review will aid future researchers in selecting an appropriate instrument.
Strengths and limitations
The study approach included a comprehensive search strategy, and numerous assessment instruments in use for measuring job satisfaction of midwives were identified. The review was guided by the PRISMA-ScR extension. The instruments and their main characteristics are presented here, and the domains of importance for the assessment of midwives’ job satisfaction identified. As this was a scoping review, the studies’ methodological qualities were not critically assessed, which is considered a limitation [27]. The study instruments and the main quality criteria reported on here refer to a number of studies conducted in different countries with considerable differences in the maternity care system. This aspect must be taken into account when assessing job satisfaction. Furthermore, some studies did not report the psychometric characteristics known to be relevant in the assessment of job satisfaction in midwives. Further research with instruments adapted to midwifery practice is required to enable methodological improvements in the study of job satisfaction of midwives.
Conclusion
This review identified a number of questionnaires assessing midwives’ job satisfaction. Only four instruments met the pre-set criteria for reliability and content validity for use in midwifery practice, so there is a need to develop or improve on instruments that capture all dimensions of midwives’ job satisfaction in hospitals. Precise measurement tools are needed to evaluate interventions aimed at improving satisfaction. In view of the global shortage of midwives, it is vital that job satisfaction for midwives be improved in order to ensure both their retention in the workforce and high-quality midwifery care.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275327.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Alnuaimi K, Ali R, Al-Younis N. Job satisfaction, work environment and intent to stay of Jordanian midwives. International Nursing Review. 2020;67(3):403–10. Epub 2020/07/29. pmid:32720311.
- 2. Hildingsson I, Fenwick J. Swedish midwives’ perception of their practice environment–A cross sectional study. Sexual & Reproductive HealthCare. 2015;6(3):174–81. pmid:26842642
- 3. Bloxsome D, Ireson D, Doleman G, Bayes S. Factors associated with midwives’ job satisfaction and intention to stay in the profession: An integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(3–4):386–99. Epub 2018/08/22. pmid:30129076.
- 4. Nedvedova D, Dvaov B, Jarosova D. Job Satisfaction of midwives: a literature review. Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. 2017;8(2):650–6.
- 5. Matthews R, Hyde R, Llewelyn F, Shafiei T, Newton M, Forster DA. Factors associated with midwives’ job satisfaction and experience of work: a cross-sectional survey of midwives in a tertiary maternity hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Women and Birth. 2021. Epub 2021/05/04. pmid:33935006.
- 6. Judge TA, Weiss HM, Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Hulin CL. Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017;102(3):356–74. Epub 2017/01/27. pmid:28125260.
- 7. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1976;16(2):250–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7.
- 8.
Herzberg F, Mausner B, Synderman B. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley& Sons; 1959.
- 9. Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(5):1332. pmid:17845089
- 10. Geuens N, Leemans A, Bogaerts A, Van Bogaert P, Franck E. Interpersonal behaviour in relation to burnout. Nursing Management. 2015;22(8):26, 8–32. Epub 2015/11/26. pmid:26602486.
- 11. Bekru ET, Cherie A, Anjulo AA. Job satisfaction and determinant factors among midwives working at health facilities in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia. Plos One. 2017;12(2):16. WOS:000394424700043. pmid:28212425
- 12. Khavayet F, Tahery N, Ahvazi MA, Tabnak A. A Survey of Job Satisfaction among Midwives Working in Hospitals. Journal of Midwifery & Reproductive Health. 2018;6(1):1186–92.
- 13. Papoutsis D, Labiris G, Niakas D. Midwives’ job satisfaction and its main determinants: A survey of midwifery practice in Greece. British Journal of Midwifery. 2014;22(7):480–6. PubMed PMID: 103974416.
- 14. Kalicińska M, Chylińska J, Wilczek-Różyczka E. Professional burnout and social support in the workplace among hospice nurses and midwives in Poland. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2012;18(6):595–603. pmid:23181962
- 15. Stahl K, Schirmer C, Kaiser L. Adaption and Validation of the Picker Employee Questionnaire With Hospital Midwives. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing. 2017;46(3):e105–e17. Epub 2017/03/07. pmid:28263725.
- 16. Peter KA, Meier-Kaeppeli B, Pehlke-Milde J, Grylka-Baeschlin S. Work-related stress and intention to leave among midwives working in Swiss maternity hospitals—a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research. 2021;21(1):671. Epub 2021/07/10. pmid:34238313.
- 17. Carolan-Olah M, Kruger G, Garvey-Graham A. Midwives’ experiences of the factors that facilitate normal birth among low risk women at a public hospital in Australia. Midwifery. 2015;31(1):112–21. pmid:25132098.
- 18. Adolphson K, Axemo P, Högberg U. Midwives’ experiences of working conditions, perceptions of professional role and attitudes towards mothers in Mozambique. Midwifery. 2016;40:95–101. pmid:27428104.
- 19. Lumadi TG, Matlala MS. Perceptions of midwives on shortage and retention of staff at a public hospital in Tshwane District. Curationis. 2019;42(1):e1–e10. Epub 2019/08/02. pmid:31368315.
- 20. Cronie D, Perdok H, Verhoeven C, Jans S, Hermus M, de Vries R, et al. Are midwives in the Netherlands satisfied with their jobs? A systematic examination of satisfaction levels among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. BMC Health Service Research. 2019;19(1):832. Epub 2019/11/15. pmid:31722747.
- 21. Jasiński AM, Derbis R, Walczak R. Workload, job satisfaction and occupational stress in Polish midwives before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Pr. 2021;72(6):623–32. Epub 2021/10/13. pmid:34636367.
- 22. Muluneh MD, Moges G, Abebe S, Hailu Y, Makonnen M, Stulz V. Midwives’ job satisfaction and intention to leave their current position in developing regions of Ethiopia. Women and Birth. 2021; 35(1):38–47. pmid:33640298
- 23. Rosenstiel von L, Nerdinger FW. Grundlagen der Organisationspsychologie: Basiswissen und Anwendungshinweise: Schäffer-Poeschel; 2011.
- 24. Van Saane N, Sluiter JK, Verbeek JH, Frings-Dresen MH. Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—a systematic review. Occupational medicine. 2003;53(3):191–200. Epub 2003/05/02. pmid:12724553.
- 25. Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology. 2018;18(1):1–7.
- 26. Arksey H O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 27. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal. 2009;26(2):91–108. pmid:19490148
- 28. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2015;13(3):141–6. pmid:26134548
- 29. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: JBI; 2020.
- 30. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 31. Bühner M. Einführung in die Test-und Fragebogenkonstruktion: Pearson Deutschland GmbH. 2011.
- 32.
Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia.: Veritas Health Innovation.
- 33. Arefi MF, Rostami F, Jahangirimehr A, Babaei-Pouya A. Examining job satisfaction, mental workload, and job control in midwives working in hospital. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. 2021;14(4):1775–9.
- 34. Bourgeault IL, Sutherns R, Macdonald M, Luce J. Problematising public and private work spaces: midwives’ work in hospitals and in homes. Midwifery. 2012;28(5):582–90. Epub 2012/08/29. pmid:22925395.
- 35. Casey M, Saunders J, O’Hara T. Impact of critical social empowerment on psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in nursing and midwifery settings. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18(1):24–34. pmid:20465726.
- 36. Davis DL, Homer CSE. Birthplace as the midwife’s work place: How does place of birth impact on midwives? Women and Birth. 2016;29(5):407–15. pmid:26996415.
- 37. Direkvand-Moghadam A, Rashan N, Bahmani M, Taheri S. Development and psychometric properties of Iranian midwives job satisfaction instrument (MJSI): A sequential exploratory study. PloS one. 2022;17(1):e0262665. pmid:35077493
- 38. Freeney Y, Fellenz MR. Work engagement as a key driver of quality of care: a study with midwives. J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(3):330–49. Epub 2013/07/28. pmid:23885397.
- 39. Grylka-Baeschlin S, Aeberli R, Guenthard-Uhl B, Meier-Kaeppeli B, Leutenegger V, Volken T, et al. Job satisfaction of midwives working in a labor ward: A repeat measure mixed-methods study. European Journal of Midwifery. 2022;6(February):1–11. pmid:35233515
- 40. Jarosova D, Gurkova E, Palese A, Godeas G, Ziakova K, Song MS, et al. Job satisfaction and leaving intentions of midwives: analysis of a multinational cross-sectional survey. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24(1):70–9. Epub 2015/01/13. pmid:25580519.
- 41. Mharapara TL, Staniland N, Stadler M, Clemons JH, Dixon L. Drivers of job satisfaction in midwifery-A work design approach. Women and Birth. 2021. Epub 2021/07/28. pmid:34312099.
- 42. Okuyucu K, Gyi D, Hignett S, Doshani A. Midwives are getting hurt: UK survey of the prevalence and risk factors for developing musculoskeletal symptoms. Midwifery. 2019;79:102546. Epub 2019/10/15. pmid:31610361.
- 43. Pallant JF, Dixon L, Sidebotham M, Fenwick J. Adaptation and psychometric testing of the Practice Environment Scale for use with midwives. Women and Birth. 2016;29(1):24–9. Epub 2015/08/13. pmid:26264165.
- 44. Perdok H, Cronie D, van der Speld C, van Dillen J, de Jonge A, Rijnders M, et al. Experienced job autonomy among maternity care professionals in The Netherlands. Midwifery. 2017;54:67–72. PubMed PMID: 125141027.
- 45. Perry L, Xu XY, Duffield C, Gallagher R, Nicholls R, Sibbritt D. Health, workforce characteristics, quality of life and intention to leave: The ’Fit for the Future’ survey of Australian nurses and midwives. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(11):2745–56. WOS:000418363000025. pmid:28543428
- 46. Rodwell J, Munro L. Well-being, satisfaction and commitment: the substitutable nature of resources for maternity hospital nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(10):2218–28. Epub 2013/02/08. pmid:23387991.
- 47. Rouleau D, Fournier P, Philibert A, Mbengue B, Dumont A. The effects of midwives’ job satisfaction on burnout, intention to quit and turnover: a longitudinal study in Senegal. Hum Resour Health. 2012;10:9. Epub 2012/05/02. pmid:22546053.
- 48. Skinner V, Madison J, Humphries JH. Job satisfaction of Australian nurses and midwives: A descriptive research study. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2012;29(4):19–27. WOS:000307841600003.
- 49. Sullivan K, Lock L, Homer CS. Factors that contribute to midwives staying in midwifery: a study in one area health service in New South Wales, Australia. Midwifery. 2011;27(3):331–5. Epub 2011/04/05. pmid:21458894.
- 50. Talasaz ZH, Saadoldin SN, Shakeri MT. Job Satisfaction and Occupational Stress in Organizational Commitment Among Midwives Working in the Maternity Wards; Mashhad, Iran, 2014. Health Scope. 2017;6(1):7. WOS:000398920100004.
- 51. Thumm EB, Shaffer J, Meek P. Development and initial psychometric testing of the midwifery practice climate scale‐part 2. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health. 2020;65(5):651–9. pmid:32893959
- 52. Vivilaki V, Athanasiadou C, Zemperligkou E, Stamatopoulou M, Springer P, Prezerakos P. Psychometric properties of the Greek Culture and Climate Scale for assessing the working conditions of midwives. Arch Hell Med. 2019;36(2):212–7. WOS:000462717800007.
- 53. Lepold A, Tanzer N, Bregenzer A, Jiménez P. The Efficient Measurement of Job Satisfaction: Facet-Items versus Facet Scales. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7). Epub 2018/07/01. pmid:29958459.
- 54. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment. 1985;49(1):71–5. pmid:16367493
- 55. Brayfield AH, Rothe HF. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology. 1951;35(5):307.
- 56. Mueller CW, McCloskey JC. Nurses’ job satisfaction: a proposed measure. Nursing research. 1990; 39(2), 113–117. pmid:2315065
- 57. Maes S, Akerboom S, Van der Doef M, Verhoeven C. The leiden quality of work life questionnaire for Nurses (LQWLQ-N). Health Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 1999.
- 58. Karasek RA. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979;24(2):285–308.
- 59. Warr P, Cook J, Wall T. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well‐being. Journal of occupational Psychology. 1979;52(2):129–48.
- 60. Macdonald S, Maclntyre P. The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly. 1997;13(2):1–16.
- 61. Weiss DJ, Dawis RV, England GW. Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation. 1967.
- 62. Labiris G, Gitona K, Drosou V, Niakas D. A proposed instrument for the assessment of job satisfaction in Greek mental NHS hospitals. Journal of medical systems. 2008;32(4):333–41. pmid:18619097
- 63. Laschinger H. Conditions for work effectiveness questionnaire I and II: User manual. Western University Canada. 2012.
- 64. Spence Laschinger HK, Finegan J, Shamian J, Wilk P. Impact of Structural and Psychological Empowerment on Job Strain in Nursing Work Settings: Expanding Kanter’s Model. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2001;31(5):260–72. 00005110-200105000-00006.
- 65. Lake ET. Development of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index. Research in nursing & health. 2002;25(3):176–88. pmid:12015780
- 66. Turnbull D, McGinley M, Fyvie H, Johnstone I, Holmes A, Shields N, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a midwifery development unit. British Journal of Midwifery. 1995;3(9):465–8.
- 67. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 2005:438–49. pmid:16425585
- 68. Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Coffey J, Coomblas J, Bryce R, et al. The impact of outpatient priming for induction of labour on midwives’ work demand, work autonomy and satisfaction. Women and Birth. 2013;26(3):207–12. Epub 2013/04/09. pmid:23561927.
- 69. Hirschfeld RR. Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference? Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2000;60(2):255–70.
- 70.
Maes S, Van der Doef M, Verhoeven C. Leidse Arbeids Kwaliteit Schaal (LAKS) [Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire (LQWQ)]. Leiden, The Netherlands: Health Psychology, Leiden University. 1993.
- 71. Hodnett ED, Stremler R, Weston JA, McKeever P. Re-conceptualizing the hospital labor room: the PLACE (pregnant and laboring in an ambient clinical environment) pilot trial. Birth. 2009;36(2):159–66. Epub 2009/06/06. pmid:19489810.
- 72. Hammond A, Foureur M, Homer CSE, Davis D. Space, place and the midwife: Exploring the relationship between the birth environment, neurobiology and midwifery practice. Women and Birth. 2013;26(4):277–81. pmid:24139678
- 73. Goldkuhl L, Dellenborg L, Berg M, Wijk H, Nilsson C. The influence and meaning of the birth environment for nulliparous women at a hospital-based labour ward in Sweden: An ethnographic study. Women and Birth. 2021; 35(4), e337–e347. pmid:34321183
- 74. Özpehlivan M, Acar AZ. Development and validation of a multidimensional job satisfaction scale in different cultures. Cogent Social Sciences. 2016;2(1):1237003.