The impact of a ‘more effective’ PATPH working environment on job satisfaction of healthcare professionals using a series of linear regressions
| Model* | Weighting | Sample size | A ‘more effective’ PATPH working environment | |||
| Coefficient | 95% CI§ | P value | Adj. p value¶ | |||
| Model 1† (primary analysis) | The optimal weights | 8417 | 9.57 | 8.99 to 10.16 | *** | NA |
| Model 2‡ (multivariate regression) | None | 8417 | 9.92 | 9.42 to 10.42 | *** | NA |
| Model 3† (subgroup analysis of region) | The optimal weights | 1504 (west) | 7.67 | 5.65 to 9.70 | *** | *** |
| 2519 (centre) | 11.17 | 10.10 to 12.24 | *** | *** | ||
| 4394 (east) | 9.13 | 8.39 to 9.86 | *** | *** | ||
| Model 4† (subgroup analysis of increased attention to the working environment) | The optimal weights | 6412 (more) | 9.60 | 9.01 to 10.19 | *** | *** |
| 2005 (less) | 8.27 | 2.57 to 13.96 | *** | *** | ||
p<0.05; ** p< 0.01; *** p<0.001.
*Outcome variables in all the models above were the job satisfaction of healthcare professionals.
†Model 1, model 3 and model 4 included the ‘more effective’ PATPH, region, and the increased attention to the working environment as independent variables.
‡Model 2 remained the ‘more effective’ PATPH, gender, age group, position, anxiety status, depression status, administrative position and the increased concern to PATPH of healthcare professionals, as well as the region and the performance rating of hospitals.
§CIs were estimated by the robust variance estimator ‘sandwich’.
¶Bonferroni corrections of p value were applied in the subgroup analysis in model 3 and model 4.
PATPH, Performance Appraisal for Tertiary Public Hospitals.