Job Satisfaction and Associated Factors Among Midwives Working in Health Centers of Central Zone, Ethiopia

Abstract

Background: Job satisfaction depends on the interactions of employee’s personal characteristics, values and expectations with the work environment and the organization. Low job satisfaction among midwives is supposed to be a problem to achieve organizational goals. Due to this reason, it is a must to determine their level of satisfaction and the contributing factors. The objective is to assess job satisfaction and associated factors among midwives working in Health Centers of Central Zone of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2019Method: - An institution-based cross sectional study was conducted on March 2019 at Central Zone of Tigray among 140 midwives selected using simple random sampling. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors related to job satisfaction. Variables which have p-value less than or equal to 0.05 with corresponding AOR at 95 confidence interval was considered to declare the significance association.Result: This study revealed that job satisfaction of health professional working Central Zone of Tigray was 43.57%. Of which respondents’ 92 (65.7%) were females and 128(91.4%) were Orthodox region followers. Majority of the respondents 85(60.7%) were under the age of 30 and almost half 69(49.3%) of the respondents were married. Motivation, management system, and work were identified as significant factors associated with midwives’ job satisfaction level. Regarding motivation, the probability of being satisfied among midwives not motivated to do their job, were 76% times less likely compared to their counterpart, whereas the management system, the probability of not satisfied with the management system were 79.2% times less likely satisfied than who were satisfied with the management system. Work satisfaction, the probability of not satisfied with their work was 91.6% times less likely satisfied than those who were satisfied with their work. Conclusion: Job satisfaction of midwives in central zone health centers was found to be low. Motivation, management system, and work were identified as significant factors associated with midwives’ job satisfaction level.

Health Professionals Job Satisfaction and Associated Factors in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Thirty-four articles 2,12,13,15–34,41–52 were used to compute the pooled prevalence of health professionals’ job satisfaction. It was found that 46.68% (95%, CI: 41.82, 51.54) of health professionals had satisfaction in their job with a remarkable heterogeneity among the included studies ( I 2 = 95.8%, P < .01).…”

“…Three studies were excluded due to different outcomes. Finally, 35 articles 2,12,13,15–34,41–52 were included in the final analysis of the current systematic review and meta-analysis (Figure 1).…”

“…All studies included in this systematic review and metaanalysis were cross-sectional studies 2,12,13,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] The included studies were published between 2011 and 2020. Among the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, nine were conducted at the national level, 10 in the Oromia region, six in the Amhara region, four studies in Addis Ababa, three in the Harari region, one study in Tigray, and one in Southern Nations and Peoples Region (SNNPR).…”

Health professional’s job satisfaction and its determinants in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The highest prevalence of job satisfaction was reported on study done in Mekelle city (67.3%) [62] and the least was in Amhara region (31.7%) [33]. Regarding to profession, 14 (46.7%) were conducted by including all health professionals [16, 33, 63, 65, 66, 68-70, 72, 74-78] and 4 on anaesthesia and midwiferies; 2 for each [61,64,68,71] (Table 1).…”

Healthcare setting staff satisfaction in Ethiopia: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Four full‐text articles were redundant, one full‐text article was out of Ethiopia, and one full‐text article was out of recommended date and excluded. Finally, we end up with 40 full‐text articles [39–77] for systematic review and meta‐analysis (Figure 1).…”