Table 4.
Risk factors for being a second victim.
| n = 286 | Having Experienced One/Several Second Victim Incidents n = 170 (59%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variable | Final Model r2 = 0.131 1 | ||||
| ReCoB 2 | p | Odds Ratio 3 | 95%-CI 4 | ||
| Gender 5 | female (n = 214) | ||||
| male (n = 69) | −0.28 | 0.39 | 0.76 | 0.41–1.41 | |
| diverse (n = 3) | 0.09 | 0.94 | 1.09 | 0.09–12.78 | |
| Age 6 (years) | ≤31 (n = 93) | ||||
| 32–43 (n = 91) | 0.19 | 0.62 | 1.21 | 0.57–2.57 | |
| 44–66 (n = 102) | 0.81 | 0.17 | 2.25 | 0.71–7.09 | |
| Work experience 7 (years) | 0–7 (n = 95) | ||||
| 8–20 (n = 101) | 0.18 | 0.64 | 1.19 | 0.57–2.48 | |
| 21–46 (n = 90) | 0.20 | 0.75 | 1.22 | 0.37–4.08 | |
| Leading position 8 (n = 103) | −0.22 | 0.47 | 0.81 | 0.45–1.45 | |
| Workplace in acute care 9 (n = 105) | −0.28 | 0.31 | 0.76 | 0.45–1.29 | |
| Openness 10 | ≤3 (n = 117) | ||||
| 3.5–5 (n = 169) | 0.17 | 0.52 | 1.19 | 0.71–1.99 | |
| Conscientiousness 10 | ≤4 (n = 121) | ||||
| 4.5–5 (n = 165) | −0.21 | 0.45 | 0.81 | 0.47–1.39 | |
| Extraversion 10 | ≤3 (n = 120) | ||||
| 3.5–5 (n = 166) | 0.52 | 0.06 | 1.69 | 0.99–2.88 | |
| Agreeableness 10 | ≤3 (n = 138) | ||||
| 3.5–5 (n = 148) | −0.11 | 0.68 | 0.90 | 0.54–1.50 | |
| Neuroticism 10 | ≤2.5 (n = 162) | ||||
| 3–5 (n = 124) | 1.02 | <0.01 | 2.77 | 1.59–4.84 | |
For the binary logistic regression model, the dependent variable second victim status was set to never been a second victim vs. having experienced one or several second victim incidents. 1 Nagelkerkes r2; 2 regression coefficient B; 3 exponentiation of the B coefficient (Exp(B)) or odds ratio; 4 confidence interval; 5 reference category (RC) is female sex; 6 RC is ≤31 years of age; 7 RC is 0–7 years of working experience; 8 RC is no leading position; 9 RC is not working in acute care (predominantly in ICU and/or emergency department); 10 RC are lower sum scores based on median splits.