Skip to main content

Table 3 Linear probability models; outcome “serious considerations to quit” (no = 0, yes = 1)

From: Lack of recognition at the societal level heightens turnover considerations among Nordic eldercare workers: a quantitative analysis of survey data

 

Model 1 – unadjusted

Model 2 – fully adjusteda

 

B

95 %CI

p-val

B

95 %CI

p-val

Recognition by top municipal officials/politicians

 Very/quite much valued (ref.)

  Not much valued

0.156

0.089/0.223

< 0.001

0.088

0.025/0.151

0.006

  Not at all valued

0.354

0.289/0.420

< 0.001

0.194

0.131/0.257

< 0.001

  Don’t know

0.160

0.093/0.227

< 0.001

0.106

0.043/0.169

0.001

  Constant

 

0.230

  

0.318

 

  Adjusted R square

 

0.052

  

0.201

 

  N

 

2,645

  

2,645

 

Recognition by mass media

 Very/quite much valued (ref.)

  Not much valued

0.077

0.024/0.129

0.004

0.019

-0.029/0.068

0.437

  Not at all valued

0.230

0.176/0.285

< 0.001

0.083

0.032/0.134

0.001

  Don’t know

0.051

-0.003/0.105

0.064

0.037

-0.013/0.087

0.146

  Constant

 

0.310

  

0.355

 

  Adjusted R square

 

0.027

  

0.186

 

  N

 

3,527

  

3,527

 

Recognition by general public

 Very/quite much valued (ref.)

  Not much valued

0.107

0.068/0.146

< 0.001

0.032

-0.005/0.062

0.092

  Not at all valued

0.261

0.208/0.314

< 0.001

0.091

0.037/0.142

0.001

  Don’t know

0.067

0.022/0.112

0.003

0.052

0.010/0.094

0.015

  Constant

 

0.329

  

0.357

 

  Adjusted R square

 

0.026

  

0.186

 

  N

 

3,527

  

3,527

 
  1. B = unstandardised regression coefficient, 95 %CI = 95 % confidence interval, bold coefficients = p-value < 0.01
  2. aAdjusted for recognition at one’s workplace, country, gender, age, immigrant status, general education, care education, work experience, financial strain, work-life balance, distressing working conditions (index constructed with 8 items), harassment at work (4 items), and self-rated health (see Appendix Table 2 for control variable coefficients)