Group | Function |
||
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Uninsured | 0.136 | 0.461 | −0.077 |
GP-insured | 0.884 | −0.076 | −0.121 |
PEP-insured | −0.472 | −0.027 | −0.006 |
GPEP-insured | 0.610 | 0.011 | 0.175 |
Emotional intelligence can improve nurses' interpersonal and coping skills, job performance, and resilience. However, there is a dearth in the literature on whether emotional intelligence affects levels of quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout in nurses.
We examined the relationship between emotional intelligence, quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout.
We conducted a cross-sectional study in Greece with a convenience sample of 992 nurses. We used the following valid tools to measure our study variables: the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form, the Quiet Quitting Scale, and the single item burnout measure.
The mean age of our nurses was 42.2 years. After controlling for gender, age, work experience, shift work, and understaffed department, the multivariable linear regression models indicated significant negative relationships between emotional intelligence and quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout. Specifically, self-control reduced detachment, lack of motivation, job burnout, and turnover intention. Moreover, emotionality reduced detachment, lack of motivation, and lack of initiative. Sociability reduced lack of initiative and lack of motivation, while well-being reduced lack of motivation, job burnout, and turnover intention.
Emotional intelligence reduced quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout in nurses. Therefore, nurse managers and policy-makers should apply interventions to optimize the emotional intelligence profiles of nurses.
Citation: Petros Galanis, Aglaia Katsiroumpa, Ioannis Moisoglou, Maria Kalogeropoulou, Parisis Gallos, Irene Vraka. Emotional intelligence protects nurses against quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 601-613. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024030
[1] | Jacqueline C Wiltshire, Kimberly R Enard, Edlin Garcia Colato, Barbara Langland Orban . Problems paying medical bills and mental health symptoms post-Affordable Care Act. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(2): 274-286. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020023 |
[2] | Luke Stanisce, Donald H Solomon, Liam O'Neill, Nadir Ahmad, Brian Swendseid, Gregory J Kubicek, Yekaterina Koshkareva . Transportation considerations in underserved patient populations receiving multidisciplinary head and neck cancer care. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(4): 1125-1136. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024058 |
[3] | LacreishaEjike-King, RashidaDorsey . Reducing Ex-offender Health Disparities through the Affordable Care Act: Fostering Improved Health Care Access and Linkages to Integrated Care. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(2): 76-83. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.2.76 |
[4] | Swapna Reddy, Matthew Speer, Mary Saxon, Madison Ziegler, Zaida Dedolph, Siman Qaasim . Evaluating network adequacy of oral health services for children on Medicaid in Arizona. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(1): 53-61. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022005 |
[5] | Rizwana Biviji, Nikita Vora, Nalani Thomas, Daniel Sheridan, Cindy M. Reynolds, Faith Kyaruzi, Swapna Reddy . Evaluating the network adequacy of vision care services for children in Arizona: A cross sectional study. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(1): 141-159. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024007 |
[6] | Aswin Sugunan, Rajasekharan Pillai K, Anice George . What is the coverage of your health insurance plan? An audit of hospital billing. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(4): 1013-1029. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024052 |
[7] | Lixian Zhong, Yidan Huyan, Elena Andreyeva, Matthew Lee Smith, Gang Han, Keri Carpenter, Samuel D Towne, Sagar N Jani, Veronica Averhart Preston, Marcia G. Ory . Predicting high-cost, commercially-insured people with diabetes in Texas: Characteristics, medical utilization patterns, and urban-rural comparisons. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 259-274. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025016 |
[8] | Larrell L. Wilkinson, Saundra H. Glover, Janice C. Probst, Bo Cai, Lisa T. Wigfall . Psychological Distress and Health Insurance Coverage among Formerly Incarcerated Young Adults in the United States. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 227-246. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.227 |
[9] | Kelly Graff, Ye Ji Choi, Lori Silveira, Christiana Smith, Lisa Abuogi, Lisa Ross DeCamp, Jane Jarjour, Chloe Friedman, Meredith A. Ware, Jill L Kaar . Lessons learned for preventing health disparities in future pandemics: the role of social vulnerabilities among children diagnosed with severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 2025, 12(1): 124-136. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2025009 |
[10] | Bethany M. Kwan, Aimee B. Valeras, Shandra Brown Levey, Donald E. Nease, Mary E. Talen . An Evidence Roadmap for Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health under the Affordable Care Act. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 691-717. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.691 |
Emotional intelligence can improve nurses' interpersonal and coping skills, job performance, and resilience. However, there is a dearth in the literature on whether emotional intelligence affects levels of quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout in nurses.
We examined the relationship between emotional intelligence, quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout.
We conducted a cross-sectional study in Greece with a convenience sample of 992 nurses. We used the following valid tools to measure our study variables: the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form, the Quiet Quitting Scale, and the single item burnout measure.
The mean age of our nurses was 42.2 years. After controlling for gender, age, work experience, shift work, and understaffed department, the multivariable linear regression models indicated significant negative relationships between emotional intelligence and quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout. Specifically, self-control reduced detachment, lack of motivation, job burnout, and turnover intention. Moreover, emotionality reduced detachment, lack of motivation, and lack of initiative. Sociability reduced lack of initiative and lack of motivation, while well-being reduced lack of motivation, job burnout, and turnover intention.
Emotional intelligence reduced quiet quitting, turnover intention, and job burnout in nurses. Therefore, nurse managers and policy-makers should apply interventions to optimize the emotional intelligence profiles of nurses.
Individuals resident in rural regions of the US find it challenging to access healthcare due to the fewer healthcare providers in rural regions, limited health insurance coverage provided by employers, long distance to healthcare facilities, among other reasons [1],[2]. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted to address some of these challenges and consequently make healthcare more accessible to individuals, irrespective of whether they were resident in urban or rural areas. This was achieved by making provisions to ensure that insurance companies were unable to use price discrimination tactics to discourage people with pre-existing medical conditions from purchasing insurance coverage. In addition, the qualification process for accessing government-funded insurance for individuals below the poverty line was made to be less restrictive. All health insurance plans were also expanded to provide additional health benefits, such as mental health services, as well as preventative care [3].
Despite the strides made by the ACA to improve access to healthcare, people continue to remain uninsured. For instance, Cha and Cohen [4] reported that 14.5% of adults in the US were uninsured for reasons ranging from not wanting coverage, to finding the signing up process too difficult. In addition, in the 2018 data obtained from a clinical data research network of community health centers (CHC), 23% of the 28 million patients were uninsured. Furthermore, in comparison with nonelderly individuals who are resident in urban areas, nonelderly individuals in rural America continue to be uninsured at a higher rate [5].
Although the consensus is that, generally speaking, rural Americans have higher uninsured rates than their urban counterparts do, few studies have investigated the specific factors that predict whether a rural resident will be insured or not. This present study attempts to fill that void in knowledge by answering two questions: First, whether there are variables that can reliably predict whether a rural resident is insured or not; and second, based on the discriminant functions created by those variables, what proportion of cases will be correctly identified. An understanding of the factors that distinguishes the insured from the uninsured in rural America can be useful in assisting policymakers and key decision makers in further reducing barriers to obtaining health insurance among the uninsured. This will be crucial to seeing the number of uninsured rural Americans drop, even as more Americans enjoy access to quality healthcare, regardless of their location.
Secondary data was obtained from a predominantly white, rural county in a Midwestern state, where the local health department had conducted a health needs assessment survey. After dropping participants with missing responses, the total usable N was 556 (444 women, 110 men and 2 unspecified; 34 uninsured, 102 government-insured (GP), 324 private- or employer-insured (PEP), and 96 both government- and private- or employer-insured (GPEP)).
The needs assessment survey was designed and administered by the county health department. After providing consent, participants completed either the written or electronic form of the survey. The survey was conducted to fulfil an administrative requirement, rather than for the sole purpose of research. As a consequence, assessments of the reliability and validity of measures were unavailable.
Age: This describes the age of the participant. Choices ranged from “Less than 18 years” to “65+”. This was coded as “0” to “5”. Though data was collected as categorical, this variable was treated as continuous for analyses.
Education: This describes the highest level of education attained by the respondent. Choices ranged from “High school without diploma” to “Graduate level degree”, which were coded as “1” to “7”. This variable was also treated as continuous for analytical purposes.
Income: This describes the respondent's combined household income for the previous year. Choices ranged from “Less than $20000” to “$100000 or more” which was coded as “1” to “5”. This variable was also treated as continuous for analysis.
Attitude towards insurance: This assesses the respondent's perception of top insurance-related problems in the community. The score was computed from respondents' answers to the following questions: (1) Whether the respondent sees the ability to pay for care as one of the most pressing problems in the community; (2) Whether the respondent sees a lack of health insurance as one of the most pressing health problems in the community; (3) Whether the respondent sees a lack of health insurance as one of the most pressing health problems in the community. The scores ranged from “0” to “3” depending on the number of the aforementioned questions the respondent answered in the affirmative.
Emergency room visit: This asks how many times in the past 12 months the respondent or someone in the respondent's household had used a hospital emergency room. Choices available to respondents were “None”, “1–2 times”, “3–5 times” and “6 or more times” which was coded as “0”, “1”, “3” and “5” respectively. This variable was also treated as continuous for analysis.
Chronic disease prevalence: This asks about the number of chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, which the respondent currently has. Scores are weighted based on their prevalence rates in the US as reported by Buttorff, Ruder, and, Bauman [6].
Insurance status: This asks whether or not the respondent has insurance coverage, as well as the type of insurance coverage he/she has. The available categories were “uninsured”, “government-provided (GP) insurance”, “private- or employer-provided (PEP) insurance”, and “both government- and private- or employer-provided (GPEP) insurance”.
A direct discriminant analysis was performed using six variables as predictors of membership in 4 groups. Predictors were age, highest education level, income, attitude towards insurance, time of most recent visit to hospital emergency room, and chronic disease prevalence scores. Groups were uninsured, government-provided (GP) insurance, private- or employer-provided (PEP) insurance, and both government- and private- or employer-provided (GPEP) insurance. A discriminant analysis was used instead of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), because the research focused on predicting membership in naturally occurring groups, rather than those formed by random assignment. IBM SPSS statistical package (v. 25) was used for all analyses.
Three more cases were excluded from the analyses because they were missing at least one discriminating variable. However, the characteristics of the dropped cases did not significantly differ from the cases eventually analyzed. Missing data appeared to be randomly scattered throughout groups and predictors. For the remaining 553 cases, evaluations of assumptions of multicollinearity were satisfactory. Z-scores for skewness for highest education level, income, time of most recent visit to hospital emergency room, and chronic disease prevalence scores were greater than 3.3 and were consequently transformed to approach normality. Additionally, statistically significant homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices (p < 0.10) was observed.
ANOVA results indicated that age (F(3,549) = 27.37, p < 0.001), highest education level (F(3,549) = 8.62, p < 0.001), income (F(3,549) = 26.72, p < 0.001), time of most recent visit to hospital emergency room (F(3,549) = 3.54, p < 0.05), and chronic disease prevalence scores (F(3,549) = 0.83, p < 0.001) all differed statistically between groups.
Three discriminant functions were calculated, with a combined Wilks' Lambda = 0.729, X2(18, N = 553) = 172.87, p < 0.001, accounting for 27.1% of the relationship between the predictors and groups. After the removal of the first and then the second function, the combined Wilks' Lambda increased to 0.978, χ2(10, N = 553) = 12.33, p = 0.26, and then 0.992, χ2(4, N = 553) = 4.59, p = 0.33. Canonical R = 0.504 for the first discriminant function, 0.119 for the second discriminant function, and 0.091 for the third discriminant function. Eigenvalue scores for each of the three discriminant functions were 0.341, 0.014 and 0.008 which respectively accounted for 93.8%, 3.9% and, 2.3% of the between-group variability.
The first discriminant function separated the PEP-insured from the other three groups, while the second discriminant function separated the uninsured from the other three groups. Since the Wilks' Lambda for the second and third discriminant functions were not significant, they are not be interpreted, although their functions at group centroids are shown in Table 1. The structure matrix of correlations between predictor and discriminant functions seem to suggest that the best predictors for distinguishing between the PEP-insured and the other groups (first discriminant function) are age (0.654), income (−0.648) and chronic disease prevalence scores (0.478). Because these variables are all related to events more likely to occur at a specific phase of life, this first dimension was labelled “chronophilic factors”. The PEP-insured were younger (mean = 3.85, SD = 1.03) than the uninsured (mean = 4.64, SD = 1.37), the GP-insured (mean = 4.90, SD = 1.51), and the GPEP-insured (mean = 4.74, SD = 1.41). Additionally, the PEP-insured were higher earners (mean = 3.37, SD = 1.61) than the uninsured (mean = 2.97, SD = 1.49), the GPEP-insured (mean = 2.43, SD = 1.64) and the GP-insured (mean = 1.95, SD = 1.12). Furthermore, the PEP-insured had lower chronic disease prevalence scores (mean = 6.55, SD = 10.48) than the uninsured (mean = 7.28, SD = 7.89), the GP-insured (mean = 13.73, SD = 13.95) and the GPEP-insured (mean = 13.25, SD = 13.31).
Group | Function |
||
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Uninsured | 0.136 | 0.461 | −0.077 |
GP-insured | 0.884 | −0.076 | −0.121 |
PEP-insured | −0.472 | −0.027 | −0.006 |
GPEP-insured | 0.610 | 0.011 | 0.175 |
Thus, the four groups differ most notably on their age, income and chronic disease prevalence scores. Individuals who are PEP-insured are the highest earners, followed by the uninsured, the GPEP-insured and the GP-insured. Also, individuals who are PEP-insured tend to be younger than all other insurance groups and are less likely to be bothered by chronic diseases when compared with other groups.
As shown in Table 2, the classification analysis for the total usable sample of 553 respondents showed correct classification in 267 cases (48.3%). Although 58.4% of the respondents were PEP-insured, the classification scheme classified 35.1% of the respondents as PEP-insured (194/553 from the Cross-validation table). That said, PEP-insured respondents were still more likely to be correctly classified (60.1% correct classification) than the uninsured (48.5% correct classification), GP-insured (41.6% correct classification), and GPEP-insured (15.6% correct classification).
Group | Predicted Group Membership |
||||
Number of Cases | Uninsured | GP-insured | PEP-insured | GPEP-insured | |
Uninsured | 33 | 16 (48.5%) | 6 (18.2%) | 7 (21.2%) | 4 (12.1%) |
GP-insured | 101 | 24 (23.8%) | 42 (41.6%) | 18 (17.8%) | 17 (16.8%) |
PEP-insured | 323 | 64 (19.8%) | 40 (12.4%) | 194 (60.1%) | 25 (7.7%) |
GPEP-insured | 96 | 20 (20.8) | 32 (33.3%) | 29 (30.2%) | 15 (15.6%) |
The main objective of this study was to investigate whether there were discriminant functions that could distinguish insured rural Americans from their uninsured counterparts. The analyzed data did not reveal any significant discriminant functions delineating the insured from the uninsured. However, the discriminant function separating the PEP-insured from other groups can provide some insights that predict membership in this group, even though it accounted for about 27% of the variance in the groups.
The data analysis revealed that income, age, and prevalence of chronic diseases were the largest contributors to the discriminant function separating members in the PEP-insured group from the other groups. The analyzed data showed that the PEP-insured were the highest income earners. Since members in this group have higher levels of income in comparison to other groups, one can assume that they were not poor. On the other hand, members of the GP- or GPEP-insured groups were eligible for government-provided insurance because they were low-income earners, disabled, or elderly and are unable to command an income comparable to their counterparts in the PEP-insured group [7]. Studies have shown that poverty is one of the major contributors to a lack of insurance. For instance, Makowska [8] reported that 26% of the individuals below the US poverty line did not have health insurance. Wippold and colleagues [9] also provided evidence showing that people with low socioeconomic statuses struggle to “pay or co-pay...for services associated with health care”, which may further increase the likelihood of them delaying in seeking care as though they did not have insurance. Cha and Cohen [4] also reported that people's perception of their inability to afford coverage was a contributor to their status as uninsured.
Members in the PEP-insured group were also younger than their counterparts in other groups. This is plausible from the economic perspective of rural employers who may prefer to employ younger people because of their strength and potential for prolonged productivity. In exchange for their commitment to pursue employment in a rural region, younger people may be incentivized with health insurance coverage. This, however, is inconsistent with Makowska [8] who reported that people aged between 26 and 34 years were the most likely to be uninsured in comparison to other age groups.
Prevalence of chronic diseases was much lower in the PEP-insured group than in any other group. This may be because the accommodations of the PEP-insurance provides access to healthcare services that better helps this category of people to manage and ultimately cure their chronic diseases. Alternatively, members of the PEP-insured group may just be overall healthier than their counterparts in other groups, are potentially more productive economically, and are thus able to get insurance-providing employment. This is consistent with the suggestion of Fernandez-Lazaro and colleagues [10] that uninsured populations are more vulnerable to chronic diseases.
The current study has some limitations. As mentioned earlier, non-researchers designed the needs assessment survey for the purpose of fulfilling an administrative requirement. As a result, the validity and reliability of the survey tool could not be determined. Furthermore, data was self-reported by the respondents and analyses were conducted with the assumption that the survey questions were answered honestly and accurately. In addition, some of the variables of interest were collected as categorical, but analyzed as continuous. This, and the violation of some statistical assumptions, could affect the findings of the study, particularly the proportion of cases that the significant discriminant functions were able to predict accurately. Future research with data from more counties will be useful in providing more insight about the discriminant functions that separate insured, rural Americans from their uninsured counterparts. In the same vein, further studies can investigate discriminant functions that predict non-insurance when more rural counties are taken into consideration. Similar studies can also be conducted to find out the discriminant functions that can predict rural insurance coverage between genders, or amongst age groups.
Understanding the factors that discriminate insured rural Americans from their uninsured counterparts will prove to be vital to the creation of a future where everyone has access to healthcare. Although, the findings of this study did not show the factors that discriminated the uninsured from the insured, it did demonstrate that there were specific factors that distinguished the PEP-insured from others. By using this study as a baseline, and investigating further in future studies, policymakers and key stakeholders can design targeted interventions that can reliably increase insurance enrollment among uninsured, rural Americans.
[1] |
Mayer JD, Roberts RD, Barsade SG (2008) Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annu Rev Psychol 59: 507-536. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646 ![]() |
[2] | Raghubir AE (2018) Emotional intelligence in professional nursing practice: A concept review using Rodgers's evolutionary analysis approach. Int J Nurs Sci 5: 126-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.03.004 |
[3] |
Giesbrecht M, Stajduhar KI, Cloutier D, et al. (2021) “We are to be like machines...fill the bed before it gets cold”: Exploring the emotional geographies of healthcare providers caring for dying residents in long-term care facilities. Soc Sci Med 272: 113749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113749 ![]() |
[4] |
Jiménez-Herrera MF, Llauradó-Serra M, Acebedo-Urdiales S, et al. (2020) Emotions and feelings in critical and emergency caring situations: A qualitative study. BMC Nurs 19: 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00438-6 ![]() |
[5] |
Adams KL, Iseler JI (2014) The relationship of bedside nurses' emotional intelligence with quality of care. J Nurs Care Qual 29: 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000039 ![]() |
[6] |
Celik G (2017) The relationship between patient satisfaction and emotional intelligence skills of nurses working in surgical clinics. Patient Prefer Adherence 11: 1363-1368. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S136185 ![]() |
[7] |
Ezzatabadi M, Bahrami MA, Hadizadeh F, et al. (2012) Nurses' emotional intelligence impact on the quality of hospital services. Iran Red Crescent Med J 14: 758-63. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.926 ![]() |
[8] |
Fonseca JG, Romo-Barrientos C, Criado-Álvarez JJ, et al. (2020) Occupational psychosocial factors in primary care continuing care staff. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 6791. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186791 ![]() |
[9] |
Soto-Rubio A, Giménez-Espert MDC, Prado-Gascó V (2020) Effect of emotional intelligence and psychosocial risks on burnout, job satisfaction, and nurses' health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 7998. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217998 ![]() |
[10] | Elshaer NSM, Moustafa MSA, Aiad MW, et al. (2018) Job stress and burnout syndrome among critical care healthcare workers. Alex J Med 54: 273-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2017.06.004 |
[11] |
Watanabe M, Yamauchi K (2019) Subtypes of overtime work and nurses' fatigue, mental status, and work engagement: A latent class analysis of Japanese hospital nurses. J Adv Nurs 75: 2122-2132. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13991 ![]() |
[12] | Wu X, Li J, Liu G, et al. (2018) The effects of emotional labor and competency on job satisfaction in nurses of China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey. Int J Nurs Sci 5: 383-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.08.001 |
[13] |
Lee J-H, Sim I-O (2021) Analysis of the relationship between the psychological well-being, emotional intelligence, willpower, and job-efficacy of clinical nurses: A structural model application. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18: 5582. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115582 ![]() |
[14] | Caruso R, Annaloro C, Arrigoni C, et al. (2021) Burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder in frontline nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies published in 2020. Acta Bio-Medica Atenei Parm 92: e2021428. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92iS2.11796 |
[15] |
Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, et al. (2021) Nurses' burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs 77: 3286-3302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14839 ![]() |
[16] |
Woo T, Ho R, Tang A, Tam W (2020) Global prevalence of burnout symptoms among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res 123: 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.015 ![]() |
[17] |
Xu G, Zeng X, Wu X (2023) Global prevalence of turnover intention among intensive care nurses: A meta-analysis. Nurs Crit Care 28: 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12679 ![]() |
[18] |
Ulupınar F, Erden Y (2024) Intention to leave among nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs 33: 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16588 ![]() |
[19] |
Yasin YM, Alomari A, Al-Hamad A, et al. (2023) The impact of COVID-19 on nurses' job satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health 11: 1285101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1285101 ![]() |
[20] |
Geese F, Zwakhalen S, Lucien B, et al. (2022) Job satisfaction of advanced practice nurses in cancer care: A systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs Off J Eur Oncol Nurs Soc 56: 102089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2021.102089 ![]() |
[21] |
Smiley RA, Allgeyer RL, Shobo Y, et al. (2023) The 2022 national nursing workforce survey. J Nurs Regul 14: S1-S90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(23)00047-9 ![]() |
[22] |
Zuzelo PR (2023) Discouraging quiet quitting: Potential strategies for nurses. Holist Nurs Pract 37: 174-175. https://doi.org/10.1097/HNP.0000000000000583 ![]() |
[23] | Galanis P, Katsiroumpa A, Vraka I, et al. (2024) Nurses quietly quit their job more often than other healthcare workers: An alarming issue for healthcare services. Int Nurs Rev 12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12931 |
[24] | Galanis P (2023) Quiet quitting: A significant threat for healthcare industry or an inevitable reaction of the healthcare workers?. Int J Caring Sci 16: 512-513. |
[25] |
Galanis P, Moisoglou I, Malliarou M, et al. (2023) Quiet quitting among nurses increases their turnover intention: Evidence from Greece in the post-COVID-19 era. Healthcare 12: 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12010079 ![]() |
[26] |
Al Hosani M, Lanteri A, Davidson R (2020) Reliability and validity testing of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire-short form to predict nurses' job satisfaction. J Nurs Meas 28: E233-E252. https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-D-19-00029 ![]() |
[27] | Chauhan R, Kaul V, Maheshwari N (2022) Impact of emotional intelligence on job performance of nurses with the mediating effect of job satisfaction. Asia Pac J Health Manag 17: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.24083/apjhm.v17i2.1257 |
[28] |
Hwang WJ, Park EH (2022) Developing a structural equation model from Grandey's emotional regulation model to measure nurses' emotional labor, job satisfaction, and job performance. Appl Nurs Res 64: 151557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2021.151557 ![]() |
[29] | Khraim H (2023) The impact of emotional intelligence on job performance at private hospitals: The moderating role of organizational culture. Probl Perspect Manag 21: 459-470. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.21(1).2023.39 |
[30] |
Alonazi WB (2020) The impact of emotional intelligence on job performance during COVID-19 crisis: A cross-sectional analysis. Psychol Res Behav Manag 13: 749-757. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S263656 ![]() |
[31] |
Alsufyani AM, Aboshaiqah AE, Alshehri FA, et al. (2022) Impact of emotional intelligence on work performance: The mediating role of occupational stress among nurses. J Nurs Scholarsh 54: 738-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12790 ![]() |
[32] |
Cassano F, Tamburrano A, Mellucci C, et al. (2020) Evaluation of emotional intelligence among master's degree students in nursing and midwifery: A cross-sectional survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 6347. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176347 ![]() |
[33] | Kwon M-J, Kim Y-H (2016) Burnout, emotional labor and emotional intelligence of psychological nurses. Int J Bio-Sci Bio-Technol 8: 245-254. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijbsbt.2016.8.2.23 |
[34] |
Al-Hamdan ZM, Muhsen A, Alhamdan M, et al. (2020) Emotional intelligence and intent to stay among nurses employed in Jordanian hospitals. J Nurs Manag 28: 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12932 ![]() |
[35] |
Wang C-Y, Lin Y-K, Chen I-H, et al. (2023) Mediating effect of job performance between emotional intelligence and turnover intentions among hospital nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: A path analysis. Collegian 30: 247-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2022.09.006 ![]() |
[36] |
Petrides KV (2009) Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). Assessing Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA: Springer US 85-101. ![]() |
[37] |
Stamatopoulou M, Galanis P, Prezerakos P (2016) Psychometric properties of the Greek translation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF). Personal Individ Differ 95: 80-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.035 ![]() |
[38] |
Galanis P, Katsiroumpa A, Vraka I, et al. (2023) The quiet quitting scale: Development and initial validation. AIMS Public Health 10: 828-848. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2023055 ![]() |
[39] | Galanis P, Katsiroumpa A, Vraka I, et al. Quiet quitting among employees: A proposed cut-off score for the “Quiet Quitting” Scale (2023). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3076541/v1 |
[40] |
Hansen V, Pit S (2016) The single item burnout measure is a psychometrically sound screening tool for occupational burnout. Health Scope 5: e32164. https://doi.org/10.17795/jhealthscope-32164 ![]() |
[41] | Galanis P, Katsiroumpa A, Vraka I, et al. (2024) The single item burnout measure is a reliable and valid tool to measure occupational burnout. Arch Hell Med 41: 245-250. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.06.23286842 |
[42] |
Spector PE, Dwyer DJ, Jex SM (1988) Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. J Appl Psychol 73: 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.11 ![]() |
[43] | World Medical Association.World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA (2013) 310: 2191-2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 |
[44] |
Al-Oweidat I, Shosha GA, Baker TA, et al. (2023) The relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment among nurses working in governmental hospitals in Jordan. BMC Nurs 22: 195. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01361-2 ![]() |
[45] |
Dehnavi M, Estebsari F, Kandi ZRK, et al. (2022) The correlation between emotional intelligence and clinical competence in nurses working in special care units: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today 116: 105453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105453 ![]() |
[46] |
Akerjordet K, Severinsson E (2007) Emotional intelligence: A review of the literature with specific focus on empirical and epistemological perspectives. J Clin Nurs 16: 1405-1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01749.x ![]() |
[47] |
Rosete D, Ciarrochi J (2005) Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadersh Organ Dev J 26: 388-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510607871 ![]() |
[48] |
Bailey C, Murphy R, Porock D (2011) Professional tears: Developing emotional intelligence around death and dying in emergency work. J Clin Nurs 20: 3364-3372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03860.x ![]() |
[49] |
Codier E, Muneno L, Franey K, et al. (2010) Is emotional intelligence an important concept for nursing practice?. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 17: 940-948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01610.x ![]() |
[50] |
Harrison PA, Fopma-Loy JL (2010) Reflective journal prompts: A vehicle for stimulating emotional competence in nursing. J Nurs Educ 49: 644-652. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100730-07 ![]() |
[51] |
Lu YL, Shorey S (2021) Nurses' perceptions of emotional intelligence in the clinical setting: A qualitative systematic review. J Nurs Manag 29: 2453-2460. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13406 ![]() |
[52] |
Akerjordet K, Severinsson E (2008) Emotionally intelligent nurse leadership: A literature review study. J Nurs Manag 16: 565-577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00893.x ![]() |
[53] |
Bahrami M, Purfarzad Z, Keshvari M, et al. (2018) Emotional competence: A core competence in gerontological nursing in Iran. Int J Older People Nurs 13: e12210. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12210 ![]() |
[54] |
Hurley J (2013) Perceptual shifts of priority: A qualitative study bringing emotional intelligence to the foreground for nurses in talk-based therapy roles. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 20: 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01892.x ![]() |
[55] |
Hutchinson M, Hurley J, Kozlowski D, et al. (2018) The use of emotional intelligence capabilities in clinical reasoning and decision-making: A qualitative, exploratory study. J Clin Nurs 27: e600-e610. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14106 ![]() |
[56] |
Imani B, Kermanshahi SMK, Vanaki Z, et al. (2018) Hospital nurses' lived experiences of intelligent resilience: A phenomenological study. J Clin Nurs 27: 2031-2040. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14310 ![]() |
[57] | Lampreia-Raposo C, Rodrigues-Correia P, Caldeira-Berenguer S, et al. (2023) Critical care nurses' emotional intelligence: A scoping review. Enfermeria Clin Engl Ed 33: 68-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcle.2022.04.005 |
[58] | Khairuddin S, Hussain S (2021) Impact on leader's emotional intelligence on turnover intention: A mediation role of organization commitment. GATR J Manag Mark Rev 6: 253-269. https://doi.org/10.35609/jmmr.2021.6.4(6) |
[59] |
Majeed N, Jamshed S (2021) Nursing turnover intentions: The role of leader emotional intelligence and team culture. J Nurs Manag 29: 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13144 ![]() |
[60] |
Abbasi J (2022) Pushed to their limits, 1 in 5 physicians intends to leave practice. JAMA 327: 1435. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.5074 ![]() |
1. | Galimzhan K. Duskaev, Kristina S. Lazebnik, Tatyana A. Klimova, Microbial diversity in the cecum of broiler chickens after introduction of coumarin and feed antibiotic into the diet, 2022, 17, 2312-7988, 555, 10.22363/2312-797X-2022-17-4-555-566 | |
2. | Dmitry Deryabin, Christina Lazebnik, Ludmila Vlasenko, Ilshat Karimov, Dianna Kosyan, Alexander Zatevalov, Galimzhan Duskaev, Broiler Chicken Cecal Microbiome and Poultry Farming Productivity: A Meta-Analysis, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 747, 10.3390/microorganisms12040747 | |
3. | Aqsa Ameer, Youqi Cheng, Farrukh Saleem, Aaron McKenna, Anne Richmond, Ozan Gundogdu, William T. Sloan, Sundus Javed, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz, Temporal stability and community assembly mechanisms in healthy broiler cecum, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1197838 |
Group | Function |
||
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Uninsured | 0.136 | 0.461 | −0.077 |
GP-insured | 0.884 | −0.076 | −0.121 |
PEP-insured | −0.472 | −0.027 | −0.006 |
GPEP-insured | 0.610 | 0.011 | 0.175 |
Group | Predicted Group Membership |
||||
Number of Cases | Uninsured | GP-insured | PEP-insured | GPEP-insured | |
Uninsured | 33 | 16 (48.5%) | 6 (18.2%) | 7 (21.2%) | 4 (12.1%) |
GP-insured | 101 | 24 (23.8%) | 42 (41.6%) | 18 (17.8%) | 17 (16.8%) |
PEP-insured | 323 | 64 (19.8%) | 40 (12.4%) | 194 (60.1%) | 25 (7.7%) |
GPEP-insured | 96 | 20 (20.8) | 32 (33.3%) | 29 (30.2%) | 15 (15.6%) |
Group | Function |
||
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Uninsured | 0.136 | 0.461 | −0.077 |
GP-insured | 0.884 | −0.076 | −0.121 |
PEP-insured | −0.472 | −0.027 | −0.006 |
GPEP-insured | 0.610 | 0.011 | 0.175 |
Group | Predicted Group Membership |
||||
Number of Cases | Uninsured | GP-insured | PEP-insured | GPEP-insured | |
Uninsured | 33 | 16 (48.5%) | 6 (18.2%) | 7 (21.2%) | 4 (12.1%) |
GP-insured | 101 | 24 (23.8%) | 42 (41.6%) | 18 (17.8%) | 17 (16.8%) |
PEP-insured | 323 | 64 (19.8%) | 40 (12.4%) | 194 (60.1%) | 25 (7.7%) |
GPEP-insured | 96 | 20 (20.8) | 32 (33.3%) | 29 (30.2%) | 15 (15.6%) |