Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 19. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2020.07.007

Table 2.

Relationship between resilience capacity and working and sociodemographic variables

Variable Resilience capacity
Point estimates P value
Very low
n (%)
Moderate to moderately low n (%) Moderately high to high
n (%)
Professional category χ2 18.27 0.00
 Physicians 6 (6.98) 60 (69.76) 20 (23.26)
 Nurses 24 (15.58) 104 (67.54) 26 (16.88)
 Nursing assistants 15 (18.75) 36 (45) 29 (36.25)
Sex 0.01
 Female 41 (15.65) 154 (58.78) 67 (25.77) χ2 8.60
 Male 4 (6.9) 46 (79.31) 8 (13.79)
Performance area 0.04
 Hospital emergency service 44 (46.06) 167 (60.94) 63 (23) χ2 6.29
 Emergency mobile units 1 (2.17) 33 (71.74) 12 (26.09)
Nurses
 Hospital emergency service 23 (17.56) 90 (68.7) 18 (13.74) χ2 7.49 0.02
 Emergency mobile units 1 (4.35) 14 (60.87) 8 (34.78)
Nursing assistants
 Not night shifts 9 (50) 6 (33.33) 3 (16.66) χ2 16.63 <0.001
 Including night shifts 5 (8.33) 30 (50) 25 (41.66)
Physicians
 Age 35.5; SD 8.68
95% CI 26.38, 44.62
44.54; SD 7.25
95% CI 42.62, 46.47
42.16; SD 9.65
95% CI 37.50, 46.81
F 3.59 0.03§
 Length of service 2.25; SD 6.23
95% CI –1.64, 11.44
9.25; SD 6.61
95% CI 8.96, 12.47
5.58; SD 8.44
95% CI 3.37, 11.51
χ2 8.74 0.01

CI, confidence interval.

Mean

Median

Chi-square test

§

Analysis of variance

Kruskal-Wallis test