Work motivation among healthcare professionals in the Saudi hospitals Presented by Nouf Sahal Al-Harbi Supervised by: Dr. Saad Al-Ghanim 2008

Work motivation among healthcare professionals in

the Saudi hospitals

Presented byNouf Sahal Al-

HarbiSupervised by:

Dr. Saad Al-Ghanim

2008

Introduction:

• Improving health professionals is at top priority of decision makers at all levels, including politicians, healthcare professionals and administrators.

Introduction:

• Enhancing healthcare providers motivation is an important strategy that should be acknowledged by all those involved in the provision of health care to patients.

Selected definitions

Motivation is considered to be the desired positive willingness that prompts a person to action.

Motivation is the desire to serve and perform effectively (Karabi, Peter, Karen & Marie, 2001).

According to Mariolein (2006) motivation

at work can be defined as a worker's degree of willingness to make and maintain an effort towards achieving an organization's goal.

Significance of the study

Health care organizations are characterized by unique characteristics that makes motivation an important topic for a research study. That is :

Hospitals are, by their nature, humanitarian facilities. That is, they are run and operated by human beings, their inputs are mainly human beings and their outputs are designed to be human beings as well.


Therefore, health decision makers find it important to motivate those who are involved directly in the provision of health care to patients.


The literature indicates that understanding what motivates and what demotivate health personnel is an important aspects of the health care administration.

Objectives of the study

To determine the extent of work motivation in Saudi hospitals.

To determine the major motivating factors for health care professional.

To determine methods of increasing motivation among health professional

This study was designed with the following objectives in mind:

Methodology

Design of the study

Data collection tool

Data analyses

This part will cover the following topics:

Design of the study

Work-related

Work-Motivation

Aspects

Personnel-related

Education-related

Financial-related

outcome

Data Collection Tool

This is a descriptive-analytical study using a self-administered questionnaire (Arabic and English versions).


The questionnaire was designed to collect information on different variables which serve the purpose of the study..


The questionnaire was used to find out factors influencing the motivation of health care staff in the Saudi hospitals.

Other than the demographic characteristics, the questionnaire consists of four dimensions related to health staff motivation:

Work-related aspects

Health personnel-related aspects

Education and training-related aspects

Financial and promotion aspects


Study Population and Sample

For this study, stratified random samples of physicians and nurses and other health staff working in MOH, other governmental hospitals and private hospitals were selected to comprise the study population.

450 questionnaires were distributed and the general response rate was 80.4%.

Study Population and Sample

Percentage

Returned

Distributed

Type of Hospital

83.3 125 150 MOH hospital

90.7 136 150Other

Governmental hospital

76.3 101 150 Private

80.4 362 450 Total

Data in this study were collected between Oct. and Nov. 2007.

Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaire

A number of steps were taken into account to increase the content validity of the questionnaire. For example:

A review of the literature Comments of experts Pilot study of 30 questionnaire

Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaire

The reliability of the questions in the questionnaire were assessed using Cronbach's alpha as follows:

0.73 for work-related aspects.0.93 for personnel-related aspects 0.95 for education and training aspects0.71 for financial and promotion aspects 0.81

Data Analysis

For the purpose of this study, the following data analyses were used:

Descriptive statistics.

This includes a general description of the study sample, in terms of frequencies and percentage, and where applicable, means and standard deviation.

Data Analysis

Inferential statistics:

Mainly, ANOVA (analysis of variance) and t-test (t-test of equality of means) were employed in order to determine whether the study respondents’ responses differ according to their: Hospital type Occupation

Results

Results of Descriptive Statistics

Types of hospita ls included in the study

125 34.5

136 37.6

101 27.9

362 100.0

Ty pes o f hos p i ta lsinc luded in the s tudy

MOH

Other gov ermenta l

Priv ate

Tota l

No. o fres pondents %

Gender of respondents

153 42.3

209 57.7

362 100.0

Male

Female

Total

ValidFrequency Percent

Age of r espondents

122 34.4

129 36.3

82 23.1

22 6.2

355 100.0

A ge in groups30 or less

31-40

41-50

above 50

Total

Frequency Valid P ercent

Mean=35.88, SD=9.34

Nationality of r espondents

173 47.9

188 52.1

361 100.0

Nationality ofrespondents

S audi

Non-saudi

Total

Frequency Valid P ercent

Mar ital status

226 62.4

136 37.6

362 100.0

Marital statusMarried

Unmarried

Total

Frequency Percent

Educational level of respondents

113 31.2

193 53.3

56 15.5

362 100.0

Educational level of respondentsHigh school or diploma

Bacheoler

Pos tgraduate

Total

Frequency Percent

Experience in groups

97 27.4

110 31.1

147 41.5

354 100.0

Ex perienc e in groups5 y rs or les s

6-10

more than 10 y ears

Total

Frequenc y Valid Perc ent

Mean=11.24, SD=8.1 yrs

Occupation of respondents

90 24.9

178 49.2

94 26.0

362 100.0

Occupation ofrespondents

Physician

Nurse

Others

Total

ValidFrequency Percent

Other = Paramedical and administrative staff

Summary of mean scores of respondents

The following tables summaries responses given about each dimension of variables.

In each dimension, the aspects are ranked in descending orders. That is, they are ranked according t their importance as perceived by respondents.

The respondents were asked to report their attitudes on a number of aspects which were thought influence their motivation.

These responses were coded on a 5-point likert scale (which can be expressed as follows)

1 = none

2 = very little

3 = little

4 = much

5 = very much

Note !!!


*Mean scores: 1=none, 2=very little, 3=little, 4=much, 5=very much

3.72±1.19240

(66.9)87

(24.2) 32

(8.9)Technology available at work

3.77±0.97245

(68.2)107

(29.8) 7

(1.9)Organization climate

3.80±0.99268

(74.4)71

(19.7) 21

(5.8)Physical conditions at work

3.93±0.97277

(76.7)71

(19.7) 13

(3.6)Clearness of job description

4.15±1.08283

(78.2)62

(17.1) 17

(4.7)Stress at work

4.16±0.92302

(84.4)48

(13.4) 8

(2.2)Working hours

4.22±0.97299

(82.6)54

(14.9) 9

(2.5)Workload

4.30±0.95309

(86.3)39

(10.9) 10

(2.8)Nature of the work

Mean±SD*

Much(%)

Little(%)

None(%)Aspects


Personnel-related aspects


3.31±1.25175(48.6)

145(40.3)

40(11.1)

Appreciation of achievements

3.53±1.18214(60.3)

111(31.3)

30(8.5)

Authority a person is having

3.56±1.12199(55.1)

144(39.9)

18(5.0)

Participation in decision-making

3.63±1.12211(58.3)

129(35.6)

22(6.1)

Management support

3.98±1.14282(77.9)

54(14.9)

26(7.2)

Type of patients dealing with

3.99±0.86271(75.5)

84(23.4)

4(1.1)

Colleagues support

4.00±0.99277(76.7)

74(20.5)

10(2.8)

Type of staff dealing with

4.19±0.82321(89.2)

29(8.1)

10(2.8)

Relationships with colleagues

Mean±SD*Much(%)

Little(%)

None(%)

Aspects

Personal-related aspects

Training and education-related aspects

Training and education aspects


3.57±1.10194

(53.6)148

(40.9) 20

(5.5)

Chances for training

3.67±1.23223

(61.9)107

(29.7) 30

(8.3)

Continuous medical education

3.74±1.01228

(63.0)121

(33.4) 13

(3.6)

Accessibility to information sources

3.81±0.91243

(67.3)108

(29.9) 10

(2.8)

Availability of information

Mean±SD*

Much(%)

Little(%)

None(%) Aspects

Financial and promotion-related aspects


3.11±1.35146

(40.6)148

(41.1) 66

(18.3)

Chances for promotion

3.23±1.36177

(49.3)117

(32.6) 65

(18.1)

Financial incentives to staff

3.48±1.08176

(48.8)172

(47.6) 13

(3.6)

Salary

Mean±SD*Much(%)

Little(%)

None(%)

Aspects

Financial and promotion aspects

Top-5 Aspects(as perceived by respondents)

Work-related4.15±1.08Stress at work

5

Work-related4.16±0.92Working hours

4

Personnel-related4.19±0.82Relationships with colleagues

3

Work-related4.22±0.97Workload

2

Work-related4.30±0.95Nature of the work 1

DimensionMean±SDAspects No.

Top-Five Aspects influencing respondents motivation

Most aspects influencing respondents motivation relate to work aspects

A comparison between physicians and nurses

ONLY for significant variables

0.0191.0954.0690PhysicianContinuous medical education

1.2593.13176Nurse0.000

.9363.7290PhysicianAppreciation of achievements

1.4263.00175Nurse0.000

1.0563.6990PhysicianFinancial incentives to staff

1.1463.70177Nurse0.008

.9804.0889PhysicianTechnology available at work

.8694.01177Nurse0.031

.9584.2790PhysicianType of staff I am dealing with

1.1163.49178Nurse0.022

.8843.7890PhysicianChances for training

1.3602.77177Nurse0.000

1.0713.7290PhysicianChances for promotion

1.0363.36177Nurse0.016

1.0563.6990PhysicianSalary you are getting

1.2453.50175Nurse0.031

.8963.7986PhysicianAuthority you are having

.9034.30176Nurse0.000

.6564.6689PhysicianNature of the work

PS.D.MeanNOccupation Aspects

In all variables that reach a significant differences, physicians have a higher mean scores than nurses

)ONLY significant differences in the aspects are shown here(

1.06

63.

7317

6N

urse

0.01

91.

095

4.06

90P

hysi

cian

Con

tinuo

us m

edi

cal e

duca

tion

Recommendations

Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations were made:

Understanding factors influencing motivation is an important step towards better performance and stability at work for the sake of the care of patients.

Healthcare administration should pay attention to the top-five factors reported in the study. These factors relate mostly to work and personal factors.

Recommendations

Recommendations

Future research should focus on aspects which increase the motivation among health workers.

Conclusion

Employee performance is a function of motivation and competency.

To improve or maintain organization effectiveness, it is important for the administrators to know their employees and how to improve or maintain their work motivation

LIMITATIONS

Despite the benefits of this study, a number of limitations deserve mention:

LIMITATIONS

The study did not cover all hospitals, both in MOH and “other” governmental agencies. Therefore, the results are only limited to hospitals under investigations.

Further research should increase the number of hospitals in different cities in the Kingdom

LIMITATIONS

Another limitation of this study is related to the methodology used. In this research, the questionnaire is used which is not the best data collection tool.

Further research should either use interviews or focus groups with health care providers. A combination of more than one data collection tool is recommended.

LIMITATIONS

All data reported here were based on “self-reported” responses. This has a problem of bias which may have influenced the results.

Results of Inferential Statistics

ANOVA

ANOVA Results

When NOVA test was used, it has been found that there was a significant differences between the three healthcare sectors (MOH, other governmental and private sectors) in all of the aspects included in the study. This can be seen in the next slide :

ANOVA (be twe e n MOH, Othe r gov. a nd priv a te hos pita ls

2 9 .1 9 9 .0 0 0

1 8 .0 7 2 .0 0 0

4 .6 7 8 .0 1 0

2 0 .0 1 4 .0 0 0

5 .1 3 0 .0 0 6

9 .4 0 6 .0 0 0

6 .7 1 5 .0 0 1

1 0 .8 5 6 .0 0 0

3 .8 2 8 .0 2 3

6 .6 8 3 .0 0 1

4 .6 4 6 .0 1 0

7 .7 7 6 .0 0 0

5 .4 8 8 .0 0 4

1 3 .1 5 5 .0 0 0

2 6 .6 8 3 .0 0 0

5 8 .6 4 2 .0 0 0

7 .3 9 8 .0 0 1

1 5 .1 6 1 .0 0 0

1 4 .0 3 0 .0 0 0

5 .6 6 8 .0 0 4

7 .6 5 7 .0 0 1

2 7 .9 4 2 .0 0 0

2 4 .9 4 8 .0 0 0

Be twe e n Gro u p s























Va ri a b le sNa tu re o f th e wo rk

Wo rk lo a d y o u a re d o i n g

Wo rk in g h o u rs

Au th o ri ty y o u a re h a v in g

Cle a rn e s s o f j o bd e s c ri p ti o nSa la ry y o u a re g e tt i n g

Ph y s ic a l c o n d i ti o n s a two rkMa n a g e me n t s u p p o rt

Co l l e a g u e s s u p p o rt

Re la ti o n s h ip s wi thc o l l e a g u e sCh a n c e s fo r p ro mo tio n

Ch a n c e s fo r tra in i n g

Av a i l a b i l i ty o f i n fo rma ti o n

Ac c e s s ib i l i ty toin fo rma tio n s o u rc e sStre s s a t wo rk

Ty p e o f p a ti e n ts I a md e a l i n g wi thTy p e o f s ta ff I a md e a l i n g wi thTe c h n o lo g y a v a i l a b le a two rkFin a n c i a l i n c e n ti v e s tos ta ffAp p re c i a ti o n o fa c h ie v e me n tsPa rt i c i p a ti o n i nd e c is i o n -ma k in gOrg a n i z a tio n c l ima te

Co n ti n u o u s me d i c a le d u c a ti o n

F Sig .

A closer look to the significance in the detailed outputs of the SPSS indicates that there was a significance difference between the responses of the private sector and the responses given by staff in the MOH and other governmental sectors in all aspects included in the study. This can be seen in the next tables:

Multiple Com pa ris ons

Sc h e ffe

-.3 8 * .0 0 2

-.9 1 * .0 0 0

.3 8 * .0 0 2

-.5 3 * .0 0 0

.9 1 * .0 0 0

.5 3 * .0 0 0

-.3 6 * .0 0 9

-.7 4 * .0 0 0

.3 6 * .0 0 9

-.3 9 * .0 0 6

.7 4 * .0 0 0

.3 9 * .0 0 6

(J )Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

(I) Ho s p i ta lty p eMOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

Na tu re o f th ewo rk y o u a red o in g

Wo rk lo a d y o ua re d o in g

Me a nDi ffe re n c e

(I-J ) Sig .

Th e me a n d i ffe re n c e i s s ig n i fi c a n t a t the .0 5 le v e l .*.

Sc h e f fe

-.2 0 .2 1 3

-.3 7 .0 1 0

.2 0 .2 1 3

-.1 7 .3 5 3

.3 7 .0 1 0

.1 7 .3 5 3

-.2 5 .2 0 4

-.9 4 .0 0 0

.2 5 .2 0 4

-.6 8 .0 0 0

.9 4 .0 0 0

.6 8 .0 0 0

-.0 3 .9 7 2

-.3 7 .0 1 5

.0 3 .9 7 2

-.3 4 .0 2 5

.3 7 .0 1 5

.3 4 .0 2 5

(J ) Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

(I ) Ho s p i ta l t y p eMOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

W o rk i n g h o u rs

Au th o ri ty y o ua re h a v i n g

Cl e a rn e s s o fj o b d e s c ri p t i o n

Me a nDi f fe re n c e

(I -J ) S i g .

Sc h e ffe

.2 7 .1 2 7

-.3 3 .0 6 1

-.2 7 .1 2 7

-.6 0 .0 0 0

.3 3 .0 6 1

.6 0 .0 0 0

-.11 .6 6 2

-.4 7 .0 0 2

.11 .6 6 2

-.3 6 .0 2 3

.4 7 .0 0 2

.3 6 .0 2 3

.0 3 .9 7 3

-.5 8 .0 0 0

-.0 3 .9 7 3

-.6 1 .0 0 0

.5 8 .0 0 0

.6 1 .0 0 0


Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

(I) Ho s p i ta l ty p eMOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

Sa la ry y o ua re g e tt i n g

Ph y s i c a lc o n d i t i o n sa t wo rk

Ma n a g e men t s u p p o rt


(I-J ) Sig .

Sc heffe

-.08 .725

-.31 .027

.08 .725

-.23 .135

.31 .027

.23 .135

-.14 .377

-.39 .002

.14 .377

-.25 .062

.39 .002

.25 .062

.31 .179

-.22 .472

-.31 .179

-.53 .012

.22 .472

.53 .012

(J )Hos pi ta lty peOther

Priv ate

MOH

Priv ate

MOH

Other

Other

Priv ate

MOH

Priv ate

MOH

Other

Other

Priv ate

MOH

Priv ate

MOH

Other

(I)Hos pi ta l ty peMOH

Other

Priv ate

MOH

Other

Priv ate

MOH

Other

Priv ate

Col leaguess upport

Relations hipswithc ol leagues

Chanc es forpromotion

MeanDifferenc e

(I-J ) Sig.

Sc h e ffe

.1 0 .7 6 7

-.4 4 .0 1 0

-.1 0 .7 6 7

-.5 4 .0 0 1

.4 4 .0 1 0

.5 4 .0 0 1

-.2 3 .1 2 5

-.3 9 .0 0 5

.2 3 .1 2 5

-.1 7 .3 7 8

.3 9 .0 0 5

.1 7 .3 7 8

-.5 1 .0 0 0

-.6 1 .0 0 0

.5 1 .0 0 0

-.1 0 .7 3 7

.6 1 .0 0 0

.1 0 .7 3 7

(J ) Ho s p i ta lty p eOth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

(I )Ho s p i ta lty p eMOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

Ch a n c e s fo rtra i n i n g

Av a i l a b i l i ty o fi n fo rma t i o n

Ac c e s s i b i l i ty toi n fo rma t i o ns o u rc e s

Me a nDi f fe re n c e

(I-J ) Si g .

Sc h e ffe

-.8 4 .0 0 0

-.7 7 .0 0 0

.8 4 .0 0 0

.0 7 .8 7 0

.7 7 .0 0 0

-.0 7 .8 7 0

-.7 3 .0 0 0

-1 .4 4 .0 0 0

.7 3 .0 0 0

-.7 1 .0 0 0

1 .4 4 .0 0 0

.7 1 .0 0 0

-.2 5 .111

-.5 0 .0 0 1

.2 5 .111

-.2 5 .1 6 1

.5 0 .0 0 1

.2 5 .1 6 1


Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

(I)Ho s p i ta lty p eMOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

MOH

Oth e r

Pri v a te

Stre s s a t wo rk

Ty p e o fp a ti e n ts I a md e a l i n g wi th

Ty p e o f s ta ff Ia m d e a l in gwi th


(I-J ) Sig .

Sc he ffe

-.77 .000

-.53 .003

.77 .000

.24 .279

.53 .003

-.24 .279

.17 .581

-.71 .000

-.17 .581

-.88 .000

.71 .000

.88 .000

.11 .780

-.42 .041

-.11 .780

-.53 .005

.42 .041

.53 .005

(J )Hos p i ta lty peOthe r

Pri v a te

MOH

Priv a te

MOH

Other

Othe r

Pri v a te

MOH

Priv a te

MOH

Other

Othe r

Pri v a te

MOH

Priv a te

MOH

Other

(I)Hos p i ta lty peMOH

Other

Pri v a te

MOH

Other

Pri v a te

MOH

Other

Pri v a te

Tec hno logyav a i lab le a twork

Financ ia linc en tiv es tos ta ff

Apprec ia tion o fac h iev emen ts

MeanDi ffe renc e

(I-J ) Sig .

Documents

Work motivation among healthcare professionals in the Saudi hospitals Presented by Nouf Sahal Al-Harbi Supervised by: Dr. Saad Al-Ghanim 2008