Background
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for review
-
Population: the reviews should be focused on those delivering adult nursing (i.e. licensed or registered) in health care services (both in hospital and community health services) in developed economies (according to the definition of the International Monetary Fund [34]).
-
Issue of interest: the reviews should have examined the determinants and/or consequences of turnover in nurses working in adult health services.
-
Comparison: any comparators, if any, used within the included reviews.
-
Outcomes: the reviews should report measures of determinants and/or consequences of adult nursing turnover outcomes. The outcomes included in the review depended on the types of outcomes examined in the retrieved reviews, but were anticipated to include turnover / retention rate and intention to leave/stay.
-
Review design I (for all stages of the overview): any form of literature review (e.g. either systematic or non-systematic reviews) which had been peer-reviewed, contained a statement of review, reported its search strategy and/or inclusion/exclusion criteria, reported either empirical findings or a list of included primary studies and included a methodological quality assessment of its included primary studies.
-
Review design II (for narrative synthesis): any review that had carried out and reported a methodological quality assessment of its included primary studies.
Search methods for identification of studies
Search line number | Search concept | Search terms | Number of retrieved articles |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Nursing | exp/Nursing staff | 34,054 |
2 | exp Nursing Care/ | 58,012 | |
3 | exp Nurses/ | 41,985 | |
4 | (nurse or nurses or nursing).tw. | 175,720 | |
5 | 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 | 229,449 | |
6 | Turnover | exp Personnel Turnover/ | 2969 |
7 | (turnover or (leave adj5 (nurse or nurses or nursing)) or (leaving adj5 (nurse or nurses or nursing)) or (retention adj5 (nurse or nurses or nursing)) or (retain adj5 (nurse or nurses or nursing)) or (stay adj5 (nurse or nurses or nursing))).tw. | 44,114 | |
8 | 6 or 7 | 45,826 | |
9 | Systematic reviews | meta-analysis.pt.,ti,ab,sh. | 63,056 |
10 | (meta anal$ or metaanal$).ti,ab,sh. | 76,516 | |
11 | ((methodol$ or systematic$ or quantitativ$) adj5 (review$ or overview$ or survey$)).ti,ab,sh. | 66,923 | |
12 | (medline or embase or index medicus).ti,ab. | 57,130 | |
13 | ((pool$ or combined or combining) adj (data or trials or studies or results)).ti,ab. | 10,736 | |
14 | literature.ti,ab. | 350,875 | |
15 | 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 | 457,235 | |
16 | 15 and review.pt.,sh. | 217,379 | |
17
|
Reviews of Nursing and Turnover
|
5 and 9 and 16
|
173
|
18
| limit 217 to english language |
170
|
Selection of studies
-
Title and abstract screening. Two authors (FP and MH) reviewed in parallel the titles and abstracts of all the articles resulted to ascertain their eligibility for full text retrieval. Disagreements were resolved by peer discussion and a third view from the project lead (VMD) if required.
-
Full-text screening. Two reviewers (MH and OB or OB and CB) read in parallel all the selected full-text articles citations to analyse whether they meet all the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Any discrepancies between the two reviewers will be resolved in discussion with the third reviewer (FP where MH and OB had read in parallel and MH where OB and CB had read in parallel).
Data extraction
Assessment of methodological quality
Data analysis
Results
Review selection, study characteristics and quality assessment
Review selection
Study characteristics
Author(s) (year) | Aim(s) Research question(s) | Selection criteria used to include primary studies (PICOS) | Scope | Type, number, and quality of included studies as reported by the author(s) | Review authors’ summary of findings | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Geography | ||||||||
2. Time limit | ||||||||
3. Language | ||||||||
Chan et al. (2013) [41] | To examine and describe the published empirical research on nurses’ intention to leave their current employment or the profession. |
P
| RNs working in non-specialty wards | 1 | International (by USA) |
Total number
|
31
| The reasons for nurses’ intention to leave are complex and influenced by many factors, categorised as individual and organizational factors. Individual factors are job satisfaction, burnout and demographic factors, whereas organizational factors comprise work environment, culture, commitment, work demands and social support. This review indicates that job satisfaction is the most influential. |
I
| determinants (aspects, factors) | 2 | 2001–2010 | Quantitative | 29 | |||
C
| Not stated | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Intention to leave |
Observational
|
29
| |||||
S
| All types of peer-reviewed primary studies (no literature reviews, dissertations) | Qualitative |
–
| |||||
Mix-Methods |
–
| |||||||
Other | 2 | |||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
No details available. | ||||||||
Critical Review of Quantitative | ||||||||
Research Worksheet (Miller 2006) [51] | ||||||||
Coomber & Barriball (2007) [48] | To explore the impact of job satisfaction components on intent to leave and turnover for hospital-based nurses. |
P
| Hospital nurses | 1 | International (by UK) |
Total number
|
9
| From the four themes discussed, three were organisational factors (leadership, stress and pay) and only one an individual/ demographic factor (educational attainment). |
I
| determinants | 2 | 1997–2004 | Quantitative | 6 | The empirical evidence shows that stress and issues concerning leadership consistently exert both direct and indirect effects on job satisfaction and intent to leave | ||
C
| Not stated | 3 | Not stated |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| intent to leave/turnover |
Observational
|
6
| |||||
S
| Primary and secondary research (no literature reviews) | Qualitative | 3 | |||||
Mix-Methods |
–
| |||||||
Quality | ||||||||
No details available. | ||||||||
Cowden et al. (2011) [46] | To examine the relationship between managers’ leadership practices and staff nurses’ intent to stay in or to leave their current position. |
P
| Staff nurses and their managers | 1 | International (by Canada) |
Total number
|
23
| The findings of the present study support a positive relationship between transformational leadership, supportive work environments and staff nurses intent to remain in their current position. Stated intentions to stay are strongly predictive of retention and turnover. Relational leadership styles attentive to the individual needs of the nurse promote staff nurses intentions to stay. |
I
| determinants | 2 | 1985–2010 | Quantitative | 22 | |||
C
| Non stated | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Intention to stay (behavioural intention) |
Observational
|
22
| |||||
S
| Peer-reviewed qualitative or quantitative studies | Qualitative | – | |||||
Mix-Methods | 1 | |||||||
Other | – | |||||||
“..All studies were rated as moderate or strong” p.468 | ||||||||
D’Ambra & Andrews (2014) [42] | To determine the impact of incivility as experienced by new graduate nurse and negative effect of incivility on retention and patient care, and identify current organisational strategies suggested by that literature to mitigate the occurrence of incivility. |
P
| Newly graduated RNs | 1 | International (by USA) |
Total number
|
16
| The reasons for nurses’ intention to leave are complex and influenced by many factors, categorised as individual and organizational factors. Individual factors are job satisfaction, burnout and demographic factors, whereas organizational factors comprise work environment, culture, commitment, work demands and social support. This review indicates that job satisfaction is the most influential. |
I
| Interventions to reduce workplace incivility | 2 | 2002–2012 | Quantitative | 3 | |||
C
| – | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Recommended |
Observational
|
3
| |||||
S
| All types of peer-reviewed primary studies (no literature reviews, dissertations) | Qualitative | 2 | |||||
Mix-Methods | – | |||||||
Other | 11^ | |||||||
^very unclear/no tabulation of papers | ||||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
No details available. | ||||||||
Flinkman et al. (2010) [11] | To review and critique the published empirical research on nurses’ intention to leave the profession |
P
| RNs or nurses with different educational background | 1 | International (by Finland) |
Total number
|
31
| A number of variables influencing nurses’ intention to leave the profession were identified, including demographic, work-related and individual-related variables. The proportion of nurses considering or intending to leave the profession varied considerably across studies. |
I
| Determinants | 2 | 1995-Jul 2009 | Quantitative | 31 | The timeframe for leaving intention also varied | ||
C
| Not stated | 3 | English, Swedish, Finnish |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Intention to leave |
Observational
|
31
| |||||
Nurses’ retention | Qualitative | – | ||||||
S
| Not stated (no editorials, opinions or discussions) | Mix-Methods | – | |||||
Other | – | |||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
“..All studies had theoretical, methodological and measurement weaknesses.” p 1424 | ||||||||
Cooper 1989 [57] | ||||||||
Li & Jones (2013) [43] | To describe the conceptualization of nurse turnover, to evaluate the methodologies and calculation of costs in those studies, to identify the range of nurse turnover costs reported in the literature and offer suggestions for future study. |
P
| Any type of nursing staff member | 1 | International (by USA) |
Total number
|
10
| Nurse turnover is costly for health-care organizations, as these costs must be paid using organizational resources and accounted for in organizational budgets. The costs of per nurse turnover ranged from $10,098 to $88,000. The ratio of nurse turnover costs relative to nurses’ salary ranged from 0.31 to 1.3. The total turnover costs also ranged from $0.55 million to $8.5 million. |
I
| Consequences | 2 | 1990–2010 | Quantitative | 10 | |||
C
| Not stated | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Organisation: turnover costs |
Observational
|
10
| |||||
S
| Not stated | Qualitative |
–
| |||||
Mix-Methods | – | |||||||
Other | – | |||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
“..The scores of studies ranged between 7 and 11.” (maximum achievable 14) p.407 | ||||||||
Quality index with seven criteria adapted from Beck 1995 [58] | ||||||||
Schluter et al. (2008) [45] | Does unresolved moral distress and poor organizational ethical climate increase nurse turnover? |
P
| Predominantly nurses in hospital settings | 1 | International (by Australia) |
Total number
|
9
| There are a number of published articles characterized by loosely defined terms implying that poor ethical climate causes nurses to leave the profession. A systematic appraisal of these articles reveals that, …, it is not rigorously substantiated by the data presented |
I
| determinants | 2 | 1980–2007 | Quantitative | 6 | |||
C
| Not stated | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Nurse turnover |
Observational
|
6
| |||||
S
| Qualitative / quantitative primary studies (no theoretical or discussion-based articles) | Qualitative | 3 | |||||
Mix-Methods | – | |||||||
Other | – | |||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
“..Most articles were of fair quality.”p 313 | ||||||||
Hawker et al. 2002 [59]. | ||||||||
Toh et al. (2012) [47] | The aim of this review was to establish the best available evidence regarding the relationship between the nursing shortage and nurses’ job satisfaction, stress and burnout levels in oncology/haematology settings. |
P
| RNs at inpatient and outpatient oncology/ haematology units, wards or healthcare facilities | 1 | International (by Singapore) |
Total number
|
7
| RNs suffered from job satisfaction, stress and burnout, which ultimately led to them leaving the specialty (oncology) or profession. |
I
| Determinants | 2 | 1990–2010 | Quantitative | 7 | |||
C
| Not stated | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Intention to leave current nursing position |
Observational
|
7
| |||||
S
| Not stated | Qualitative | – | |||||
Mix-Methods | – | |||||||
Other | – | |||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
No details available. | ||||||||
Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) [not referenced in Toh et al.]. | ||||||||
Wagner (2007) [44] | (1) What is the predictability of organizational commitment as a variable in nursing turnover studies, (2) how do organizational commitment and job satisfaction compare as predictor variables in nursing turnover studies and (3) what is the usefulness of organizational commitment in nursing turnover research? |
P
| Nurses | 1 | International (by USA) |
Total number
|
23
| Organizational commitment had statistically significant predictive ability in the 23 nursing turnover studies; but only 5 studies substantiated this as direct relationship. The research revealed that when using mediator variables such as intent to leave or intent to remain in turnover studies, organizational commitment is a highly desirable component. Finally, the literature demonstrated that organizational commitment is a stronger predictor of nursing turnover than is job satisfaction. |
I
| Determinants | 2 | 1960–2006 | Quantitative | 23 | |||
C
| – | 3 | English |
Experimental (quasi)
|
–
| |||
O
| Turnover |
Observational
|
23
| |||||
Intent to leave or intent to remain | Qualitative | – | ||||||
S
| Primary studies (type not stated) | Mix-Methods | – | |||||
Other | – | |||||||
Quality
| ||||||||
No details available. | ||||||||
Not clear |
Articles | Coomber | Wagner | Schluter | Flinkman | Cowden | Toh | Chan | Li | D’Ambra | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 [48] | 2007 [44] | 2008 [45] | 2010 [11] | 2011 [46] | 2012 [47] | 2013 [41] | 2013 [43] | 2014 [42] | ||
Bycio | 1995 [60] | x | x | |||||||
Taunton | 1997 [61] | x | x | |||||||
Ingersoll | 2002 [62] | x | x | |||||||
Cowin | 2002 [63] | x | x | |||||||
Lu | 2002 [64] | x | x | |||||||
Larrabee | 2003 [65] | x | x | |||||||
Sourdif | 2004 [66] | x | x | |||||||
Lynn | 2005 [67] | x | x | x | ||||||
Hart | 2005 [68] | X | x | x | ||||||
Tourangeau | 2006 [69] | x | x | |||||||
Chang | 2006 [70] | x | x | |||||||
Estryn-Behar | 2007 [71] | x | ||||||||
Flinkman | 2008 [72] | x | x | |||||||
Mrayyan | 2008 [73] | x | x | |||||||
Chen | 2008 [74] | x | x |