Professional satisfaction in nursing during the COVID-19 pandemic

cross-sectional epidemiological study, with the participation of 334 nursing professionals of a teaching hospital. Absolute and relative frequencies of qualitative variables and means of numerical variables were calculated. The mean scores of the domains of the Job Satisfaction Survey were compared with sociodemographic-labor variables. Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney test, and ANOVA test were applied and followed by Tukey, Kruskal-Wallis, or Dunn’s post-test to verify the statistical significance of the results with a critical level of 0.05.

Results:

90 professionals were satisfied with their work, three professionals were dissatisfied and 241 professionals were ambivalent.

Conclusion:

ambivalence was evidenced among nursing workers regarding their job satisfaction during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings indicate a path for managers and health policymakers to invest in career plans and work environments that improve the working conditions of nursing workers.

Descriptors:
Pandemics; Occupational Health; Job Satisfaction; Nursing Administration Research; Working Conditions; Occupational Stress

Highlights:

(1) Evidenced ambivalence regarding job satisfaction.

(2) Evidenced dissatisfaction regarding compensation, benefits, promotion and environment.

(3) Evidenced dissatisfaction regarding compensation, benefits, promotion and environment.

(4) Evidenced dissatisfaction regarding compensation, benefits, promotion and environment.

	Nursing technician	Nurse (care)	Nurse (manager)	n ^* * n = Number of respondents	%
Sex				334	100
Female	170	92	26	288	86.23
Male	26	13	7	46	13.77
Marital status				334	100%
With a partner	128	75	24	227	67.96
Without a partner	68	30	9	107	32.04
Level of education				334	100
Complete technical education	108			108	32.34
Incomplete higher education		27		27	8.08
Complete higher education			161	161	48.20
Postgraduate degree				38	11.38
Working shift				334	100
Morning	48	29	2	79	23.65
Afternoon	49	32	1	82	24.55
Night	87	38	8	133	39.82
Business hours	12	6	22	40	11.98

Variable	Complete technical education	Incomplete higher education	Complete higher education	Post-graduate degree
Remuneration ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	9.57	9.7	9.38	8.97
Benefits ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	9.59	9.63	9.69	10.42
Promotion ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	6.11	6.15	6.07	6.87
Colleagues ‡ p-value<0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test ‡	17.35	17.37	16.66	15.24
Rewards ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	11.50	11.96	11.39	11.39
Nature of the work ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	15.31	15.70	14.76	14.03
Supervision ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	19.42	18.89	18.80	19.16
Operational conditions ‡ p-value<0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test ‡	9.67	9.93	8.44	6.97
Communication ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	14.04	14.74	13.82	12.16
Total ^† † p-value>0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	112.36	114.07	108.83	104.92

Variable	Nursing technician	Nurse (care)	Nurse (manager)
Remuneration ^† † p-value<0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	9.48	8.77	11.12
Benefits ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	9.64	9.73	10.29
Promotion ^† † p-value<0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	5.73	6.07	9.12
Colleagues ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	17.12	16.41	15.94
Rewards ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	11.28	11.36	12.94
Nature of the work ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	15.19	14.63	14.41
Supervision ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	19.36	18.23	19.79
Operational conditions ^† † p-value<0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	9.45	8.24	6.68
Communication ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	14.16	13.25	13.21
Total ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	111.16	106.69	113.39

Variable	Morning	Afternoon	Night	Business hours
Remuneration ^† † p-value<0.05, obtained using Kruskal-Wallis test;	8.80	10.25	9.25	9.50
Benefits ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	9.11	10.93	9.45	9.50
Promotion ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	5.60	6.59	5.90	7.40
Colleagues ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	15.83	17.33	17.37	15.55
Rewards ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	10.15	13.20	11.19	11.53
Nature of the work ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	14.49	15.57	15.10	13.93
Supervision ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	18.68	20.10	18.63	19.00
Operational conditions ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	8.33	9.64	9.08	6.95
Comunicação ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	12.83	14.98	14.00	12.46
Total ^‡ ‡ p-value>0.05, obtained using the ANOVA test	103.83	118.38	109.71	105.66

Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, 14040-902 Ribeirão Preto SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 (16) 3315-3451 / 3315-4407 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rlae@eerp.usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author:
Ariane Polidoro Dini E-mail: adini@unicamp.br https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5830-9989