Quality of life and work engagement among nursing staff at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic

Carvalho, Taisa Moitinho de; Lourenção, Luciano Garcia; Pinto, Maria Helena; Viana, Renata Andrea Pietro Pereira; Moreira, Ana Maria Batista da Silva Gonçalves; Mello, Leticia Pepineli de; Medeiros, Gilney Guerra de; Gomes, Antonio Marcos Freire

doi:10.1590/1413-812320232810.09982023EN

Taisa Moitinho de Carvalho

conception and development of the project

data acquisition, analysis and interpretation

writing

final approval of the article

Curso de Pós-Graduação em Gestão e Liderança em Enfermagem, Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde de Barretos Dr. Paulo Prata. Av. Leais Paulista 515, Jardim Irajá. 14020-650 Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil. taisa.carvalho84@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9251-2625

Luciano Garcia Lourenção

conception and development of the project

data acquisition, analysis and interpretation

writing

final approval of the article

Escola de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande. Rio Grande RS Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1240-4702

Maria Helena Pinto

conception and development of the project

data acquisition, analysis and interpretation

writing

final approval of the article

Departamento de Enfermagem Geral, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto. São José do Rio Preto SP Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0601-8511

Renata Andrea Pietro Pereira Viana

writing

final approval of the article

Unidade de Terapia Intensiva do Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual de São Paulo. São Paulo SP Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7539-3003

Ana Maria Batista da Silva Gonçalves Moreira

writing

final approval of the article

Hospital de Amor Nossa Senhora de Barretos. Barretos SP Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2049-3263

Leticia Pepineli de Mello

writing

final approval of the article

Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Barretos. Barretos SP Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3495-8172

Gilney Guerra de Medeiros

writing

final approval of the article

Conselho Federal de Enfermagem. Brasília DF Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3351-2841

Antonio Marcos Freire Gomes

writing

final approval of the article

Universidade do Estado do Pará. Belém PA Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1724-6616

Chief editors:

Romeu Gomes, Antônio Augusto Moura da Silva

Variables		n	%
Professional category
	Nursing assistant	27	7.9
	Nursing technician	217	63.6
	Nurse	93	27.3
	Did not answer	4	1.2
Sex
	Female	305	89.4
	Male	33	9.7
	Did not answer	3	0.9
Age range (in years)
	≤20	6	1.8
	21 to 30	123	36.1
	31 to 40	127	37.2
	41 to 50	60	17.6
	≥51	15	4.4
	Did not answer	10	2.9
Marital Status
	Married/Stable union	168	49.3
	Single	134	39.3
	Divorced/Separated	31	9.1
	Widowed	5	1.5
	Did not answer	3	0.9
Children
	Yes	206	60.4
	No	131	38.4
	Did not answer	4	1.2
Training time (in years)
	<1	30	8.8
	≥1 and <4	99	29.0
	≥4 and <7	57	16.7
	≥7 and <10	57	16.7
	>10	94	27.6
	Did not answer	4	1.2
Time working at the hospital (in years)
	<1	63	18.5
	≥1 and <4	119	34.9
	≥4 and <7	60	17.6
	≥7 and <10	37	10.9
	≥10	60	17.6
	Did not answer	2	0.6

UWES Dimensions*	^† Min	^‡ Max	^§ Md	Average	Standard deviation	CI (95%)^¶	Interpretation
Vigour	1.7	6.0	5.3	5.2	0.8	5.1-5.2	Very high
Dedication	2.0	6.0	5.8	5.6	0.6	5.5-5.7	Very high
Absorption	1.3	6.0	5.0	4.9	0.9	4.8-5.0	High
Overall score	1.7	6.0	5.4	5.2	0.6	5.1-5.3	Very high

Variables		Dedication Mean (±SD)	Absorption Mean (±SD)	Vigour Mean (±SD)	Overall Score Mean (±SD)
Professional category
	Nursing assistant	4.9 (±1.0) ^a	5.4 (±0.7) ^b	4.9 (±0.8) ^a	5.0 (±0.7) ^b
	Nursing technician	5.1 (±0.8) ^b	5.6 (±0.6) ^b	4.8 (±1.0) ^a	5.2 (±0.7) ^b
	Nurse	5.3 (±0.7) ^b	5.7 (±0.5) ^b	5.0 (±0.7) ^b	5.3 (±0.5) ^b
	Nursing manager	5.5 (±0.3) ^b	5.9 (±0.1) ^b	5.3 (±0.2) ^b	5.5 (±0.1) ^b
	p-value*	0.037	0.142	0.040	0.223
Age range (in years)
	≤20	5.1 (±0.4) ^b	5.9 (±0.3) ^b	4.6 (±0.7) ^a	5.1 (±0.2) ^b
	21 to 30	5.2 (±0.8) ^b	5.9 (±0.3) ^b	5.0 (±0.9) ^b	5.2 (±0.7) ^b
	31 to 40	5.5 (±0.7) ^b	5.8 (±0.5) ^b	5.2 (±0.8) ^b	5.5 (±0.5) ^b
	41 to 50	5.3 (±0.7) ^b	5.8 (±0.6) ^b	5.3 (±0.8) ^b	5.5 (±0.6) ^b
	≥51	5.7 (±1.1) ^b	6.0 (±0.8) ^b	5.0 (±0.8) ^b	5.4 (±0.7) ^b
	p-value*	<0.001	0.069	<0.001	0.500
Children
	No	5.1 (±0.8) ^b	5.7 (±0.6) ^b	4.8 (±0.9) ^a	5.1 (±0.7) ^b
	Yes	5.2 (±0.8) ^b	5.6 (±0.6) ^b	5.0 (±0.9) ^b	5.3 (±0.6) ^b
	p-value**	0.034	0.020	0.019	0.014

WRQoL domains	WRQoL
WRQoL domains	Unsatisfactory n (%)	Intermediate n (%)	Satisfactory n (%)
Fair and adequate compensation	19 (5.6)	176 (51.9)	144 (42.5)
Work conditions	5 (1.5)	137 (40.3)	199 (58.4)
Use of capabilities	3 (0.9)	106 (31.1)	232 (68.0)
Opportunity	6 (1.8)	155 (45.5)	180 (52.8)
Social integration	4 (1.2)	102 (29.9)	235 (68.9)
Constitutionalism	8 (2.3)	111 (32.6)	222 (65.1)
Work and life	4 (1.2)	140 (41.1)	197 (57.8)
Social relevance	3 (0.9)	77 (22.6)	261 (76.5)

WRQoL domains		Dimensions of work engagement
		Vigour	Dedication	Absorption	Overall Score
		Average (SD)	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	Average (SD)
Fair and adequate compensation
	Unsatisfactory	4.4 (1.2) ^b	5.0 (1.1) ^c	4.4 (1.3) ^b	4.6 (1.1) ^b
	Intermediate	5.0 (0.8) ^c	5.6 (0.6) ^c	4.8 (0.9) ^b	5.1 (0.6) ^c
	Satisfactory	5.4 (0.5) ^c	5.8 (0.5) ^c	5.1 (0.7) ^c	5.4 (0.4) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.31 ^§	0.35 ^§	0.20 ^§	0.32 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Work conditions
	Unsatisfactory	5.3 (0.8) ^c	5.6 (0.5) ^c	5.1 (0.7) ^c	5.3 (0.6) ^c
	Intermediate	4.8 (0.9) ^b	5.3 (0.8) ^c	4.6 (1.1) ^a	4.9 (0.8) ^b
	Satisfactory	5.4 (0.5) ^c	5.8 (0.3) ^c	5.1 (0.7) ^c	5.4 (0.4) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.40 ^{ϯ ϯ}	0.40 ^{ϯ ϯ}	0.27 ^§	0.41 ^{ϯ ϯ}
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Skill use
	Unsatisfactory	3.9 (2.2) ^a	4.3 (2.1) ^b	3.7 (0.2) ^a	4.0 (2.1) ^b
	Intermediate	4.8 (0.9) ^b	5.4 (0.7) ^c	4.7 (1.0) ^b	4.9 (0.8) ^b
	Satisfactory	5.3 (0.6) ^c	5.7 (0.5) ^c	5.0 (0.8) ^c	5.3 (0.5) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	0.010	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.35 ^§	0.35 ^§	0.21 ^§	0.34 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Opportunity
	Unsatisfactory	4.2 (1.6) ^b	4.8 (1.5) ^b	4.4 (1.7) ^b	4.5 (1.6) ^b
	Intermediate	5.0 (0.8) ^c	5.4 (0.7) ^c	4.6 (1.0) ^b	5.0 (0.7) ^c
	Satisfactory	5.4 (0.7) ^c	5.8 (0.3) ^c	5.1 (0.7) ^c	5.4 (0.4) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	0.010	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.36 ^§	0.36 ^§	0.26 ^§	0.37 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Social integration
	Unsatisfactory	5.1 (0.9) ^c	5.7 (0.6) ^c	5.3 (0.8) ^c	5.4 (0.7) ^c
	Intermediate	4.9 (1.0) ^b	5.3 (0.9) ^c	4.6 (1.1) ^b	4.9 (0.9) ^b
	Satisfactory	5.3 (0.6) ^c	5.7 (0.4) ^c	5.0 (0.8) ^c	5.3 (0.4) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	0.008	<0.001	0.032	0.003
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.88 ^¥	0.29 ^§	0.19 ^§	0.28 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
WRQoL domains		Dimensions of work engagement
		Vigour	Dedication	Absorption	Overall Score
		Average (SD)	Average (SD)	Average (SD)	Average (SD)
Constitutionalism
	Unsatisfactory	5.3 (0.7) ^c	5.7 (0.4) ^c	5.4 (0.7) ^c	5.4 (0.5) ^c
	Intermediate	4.8 (1.0) ^b	5.3 (0.8) ^c	4.6 (1.1) ^b	4.9 (0.9) ^b
	Satisfactory	5.3 (0.6) ^c	5.8 (0.4) ^c	5.0 (0.7) ^c	5.3 (0.4) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.35 ^§	0.35 ^§	0.21 ^§	0.33 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Work and life
	Unsatisfactory	5.3 (0.8) ^c	5.7 (0.6) ^c	5.4 (0.8) ^c	5.4 (0.7) ^c
	Intermediate	4.9 (0.9) ^b	5.4 (0.8) ^c	4.7 (1.0) ^b	5.0 (0.8) ^c
	Satisfactory	5.3 (0.6) ^c	5.8 (0.4) ^c	5.0 (0.7) ^c	5.4 (0.5) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.31 ^§	0.28 ^§	0.18 ^§	0.29 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	<0.001
Social relevance
	Unsatisfactory	5.3 (1.0) ^c	5.5 (0.6) ^c	5.2 (0.9) ^c	5.4 (0.9) ^c
	Intermediate	4.6 (1.0) ^b	5.2 (0.9) ^c	4.4 (1.1) ^b	4.7 (0.9) ^b
	Satisfactory	5.3 (0.6) ^c	5.8 (0.4) ^c	5.0 (0.8) ^c	5.3 (0.5) ^c
	p-value (ANOVA)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	Correlation coefficient (r)	0.36 ^§	0.38 ^§	0.24 ^§	0.36 ^§
	p-value (Pearson test)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

[1] Chief editors:

Romeu Gomes, Antônio Augusto Moura da Silva

Brasil

Brasil

Quality of life and work engagement among nursing staff at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract