Worldwide prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel: A systematic review and meta-analysis

J Nurs Sch. 2022;54:513–528. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jnu | 513 Received: 29 September 2021 | Revised: 7 November 2021 | Accepted: 18 November 2021 DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12749 Worldwide prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel: A systematic review and metaanalysis José Manuel RomeroSánchez PhD, RN1,2 | Ana María PorcelGálvez PhD, RN1,3 | Olga PalomaCastro PhD, RN2,4 | Jesús GarcíaJiménez MSc, RN5 | María Eugenia GonzálezDomínguez PhD, MD6 | Xavier PalomarAumatell PhD, RN7 | Elena FernándezGarcía PhD, RN1,3 1Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Podiatry, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain 2Research Group under the Andalusian Research, Development, and Innovation Scheme CTS1019 MELES “Nursing methods and Standardized Languages”, Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain 3Research Group under the Andalusian Research, Development, and Innovation Scheme CTS1050 “Complex Care, Chronic and Health Outcomes”, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain 4Nursing and Physiotherapy Department, Faculty of Nursing, Universidad de Cádiz, Algeciras, Cádiz, Spain 5Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Cádiz, Spain 6Health and Safety Department, Medical Services, Centro Bahía de Cádiz, Airbus Company, El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz, Spain 7Methodology, Models, Methods and Outcomes of Health and Social Sciences (M3O), Centre for Health and Social Care Research (CESS), Universitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya, Vic, Barcelona, Spain Correspondence Ana María PorcelGálvez, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Universidad de Sevilla, Calle Avenzoar 6. Sevilla, 41009, Spain. Email: [email protected] Funding information No external funding. Abstract Purpose: To estimate the worldwide pooled prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel using the Work Ability Index (WAI). Design: Systematic review and metaanalysis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Scielo, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Nursing and Allied Health, LILACS, and Google Scholar from inception to July 2021 to identify observational studies on work ability among hospital nursing personnel using the WAI. Two researchers independently completed the study selection, quality assessments, and data extraction on the prevalence of inadequate work ability that was pooled using the random effects model. Finally, subgroup analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. Findings: A total of 42 studies were included, consisting of 24,728 subjects worldwide from 14 countries. Of these, 35 studies were included in the metaanalytical analyses. The worldwide pooled prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel was 24.7% (95% CI = 20.2%– 29.4%). High levels of heterogeneity were detected in all studies. Prevalence was higher in studies where samples were composed of nurses and nursing assistive personnel (26.8%; 95% CI = 22.4%– 31.5%) than in those of nurses alone (22.2%; 95% CI = 13.1%– 32.9%) and in studies where the sample was over 40 (28.1%; 95% CI = 19.5%– 37.5%) than in those with a sample under that age (22.4%; 95% CI = 15.8%– 29.7%). Conclusions: Almost one in four members of hospital nursing staff in the world has inadequate work ability and therefore are at risk of several negative outcomes during their working life. These prevalence data correspond to the prepandemic period, so new studies should also be especially useful in quantifying the impact of the COVID19 pandemic on work ability in the hospital nursing workforce. Clinical relevance: The above findings justify the launch of initiatives that include annual assessment for the early identification of inadequate work ability, offering the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Nursing Scholarship published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Sigma Theta Tau International. 514 | WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL BACKGROUND Work ability has been defined as the ability of a person, or rather a perception of their ability, to meet the demands of their job (Ilmarinen, 2009). Inherent in this definition is the notion that work ability is not only a function of one's personal capacities, including physical, mental, and social/interpersonal abilities, but also job requirements (Cadiz et al., 2019). That is why work ability varies within the same individual depending on their position or working conditions. Extended evidence shows that work ability is a prognostic factor in absence from work (Reeuwijk et al., 2015), including longterm absence (Török et al., 2020), risk pension status (Roelen et al., 2014), early retirement intentions (Pit & Hansen, 2014), and outcomes beyond their working life, such as disability and death in later life (von Bonsdorff et al., 2011). For these reasons, the promotion of excellent work ability has been considered a key factor in prolonging a productive working life (Lindberg et al., 2006). Since the 1980s, researchers have focused on the evaluation of work ability, and its study has progressively gained prominence in the decades since, conditioned by demographic transitions, changes in work processes, and the incursion of new technologies and changes in labor relations (Ilmarinen, 2005). These changes have had a major impact on the nursing profession since nurses work in increasingly complex and challenging contexts, with a higher demand for care of people with multimorbidity and advanced age, leading to increased physical and mental demands made on these professionals (Catton, 2020). Additionally, hospital nurses have been reported to have especially high psychological and physical job demands (Jalilian et al., 2019). To measure work ability, the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health developed the Work Ability Index (WAI) (Tuomi et al., 1988). The WAI is the most widely accepted and commonly used instrument to measure work ability and is available in 25 languages (van den Berg et al., 2009; World Health Organization, 2012). It is composed of 60 items distributed in seven dimensions that assess (a) current work ability compared with the lifetime best (1 item), (b) work ability in relation to the demands of the job (2 weighted items), (c) number of current diseases diagnosed by a physician (out of a list of 51 diseases), (d) estimated work impairment due to disease (1 item), (e) sick leave during the past 12 months (1 item), (f) own prognosis of work ability 2 years from now (1 item), and (g) mental resources (3 items) (Tuomi et al., 1997). Scores on each dimension are added together, with a range from 7 to 49, which allow workers to be classified into four categories: poor (7– 27); moderate (28– 36); good (37– 43); and excellent work ability (44– 49). These categories were derived from the 15th and 85th percentiles of the scores obtained for a population of Finish municipal employees in 1981, and the resulting cutoffs have remained unchanged since that time (Ebener & Hasselhorn, 2019). However, since then, numerous studies have dichotomized the variable by merging the categories poor and moderate into inadequate work ability (7– 36) and good and excellent adequate work ability (37– 49). This could be due to statistical reasons, but also because both poor and moderate categories are the ones in which the worker has already had an imbalance between individual resources and the demands of the job, and therefore interventions to restore or improve work ability are needed. Until now, several studies around the world have used the WAI to determine work ability among nurses; however, the prevalence rates of inadequate work ability, including poor and moderate work ability, among hospital nurses vary considerably between studies. In this sense, knowing an approximation of the global prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel around the world helps to estimate the magnitude of the problem and determine the need for corrective measures. Therefore, the objective of this study is to develop a systematic review and metaanalysis to estimate the worldwide pooled prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel measured by means of the WAI. METHODS A metaanalytic study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021). The systematic review protocol for this study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 26 July 2021 (pending registration number). Eligibility criteria Studies were included in accordance with the following criteria: • Study design: primary observational studies with a crosssectional or prospective research design. Studies aimed at psychometric testing of the WAI were excluded. • Prevalence data: studies that have data on the prevalence of inadequate work ability or data on which prevalence could be possibility of anticipated corrective measures. Nursing workforce older than 40 years and those belonging to the professional category of nursing assistive personnel should be priority target groups for screening and intervention to improve work ability. KEYWORDS hospital, metaanalysis, nurses, nursing assistants, nursing staff, hospital, work, work ability, work ability index | 515 WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL calculated. In studies in which such data were not found, the authors were contacted and asked to provide them. Only data from those who responded within 5 days of contact were included. • Instrument: studies using the complete form of the WAI to measure work ability were included, excluding those using shortened or partial versions of the WAI (individual dimension/s or items). • Population: the study population was nursing personnel who worked in hospitals around the world. Nursing personnel encompassed nurses and Nursing Assistive Personnel. Nursing assistive personnel included all categories of unlicensed personnel who are accountable to and work under the direct supervision of a nurse to implement specifically delegated patient care activities (Association of Women's Health, 2009). Studies conducted on midwives were excluded. Studies with aggregate data from hospital nurses with other categories of hospital professionals (physicians) and with nursing personnel working in other clinical TABLE 1 Search strategy Database Search strategy Results Web of Science (WOS) ([“work ability index”] OR AB = [“work ability index”] OR AK = [“work ability index”]) AND ([nurs*] OR AB = [nurs*] OR AK = [nurs*]) AND ([hospital*] OR AB = [hospital*] OR AK = [hospital*]) 54 MEDLINE/Pubmed ((“work ability index” [Tittle/Abstract]) OR (“work ability index” [Title]) OR (“work ability index” [Other Term])) AND ((nurs*[Tittle/Abstract]) OR (nurs*[Other Term])) AND ((hospital*[Tittle/ Abstract]) OR (hospital*[Title])) OR (hospital*[Other Term])) 49 CINAHL (“work ability index” OR AB “work ability index” OR SU “work ability index”) AND (nurs* OR AB nurs* OR SU nurs*) AND (hospital* OR AB hospital* OR SU hospital*) 22 Scopus (TITLEABSKEY [“work ability index”]) AND (TITLEABSKEY[nurs*]) AND (TITLEABSKEY [hospital*]) 65 Lilacs (“work ability index”) AND (nurs*) AND (hospital*) 22 PsycINFO (ab[“work ability index”] OR ti[“work ability index”]) AND (ab[nurs*] OR ti[nurs*]) AND (ab[Hospital*] OR ti[Hospital*]) 13 ProQuest nursing and allied health (ab[“work ability index”] OR ti[“work ability index”]) AND (ab[nurs*] OR ti[nurs*]) AND (ab[Hospital*] OR ti[Hospital*]) 10 Scielo (“work ability index”) AND (nurs*) AND (hospital*) 14 Google scholar “work ability index” AND nurses AND hospital - DIAGRAM 1 Flow diagram Records identified from databases (n=249): MEDLINE/PubMed (n=49) Scopus (n=65) WOS (n=54) CINAHL (n=22) PsycINFO (n=13) LILACS (n=22) Scielo (n=14) ProQuest (n=10) Records removed before screening: Duplicate records removed (n=145) Records screened (n=104) Records excluded (n=17) Reports sought for retrieval (n=86) Reports not retrieved (n=5) Reports assessed for eligibility (n=81) Reports excluded (n=44): No prevalence data reported (n=10) Secondary analysis of included study (n=11) Aggregate data from hospital nursing personnel with other professionals (n=11) Aggregate data from hospital nursing personnel with nurses from other clinical settings (n=1) Use of shortened or partial WAI (n=9) Non observational design (n=1) More than one reason (n=2) Records identified from: Citation searching (n=1) Reports previously known by the authors not retrieved from databases (n=7) Reports assessed for eligibility (n=8) Reports excluded (n=3): No prevalence data reported (n=1) Prevalence data already reported in another included study (n=2) Studies included in review (n=42) Studies included in metaanalysis (n=35) Identification of studies via databases and registers Identification of studies via other methods Identification Screening Included Reports sought for retrieval (n=8) Reports not retrieved (n=0) 516 | WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL TABLE 2 Characteristics of the studies Author(s), year Country of the origin of sample Type of publication Study design type Sampling method Sample size (N) Sampling fraction (%) Professional categories Hospital unit Age in years (mean ± SD) Proportion of women n (%) Poor work ability (WAI score 7– 27) n (%) Moderate work ability (WAI score 28– 36) n (%) Inadequate work ability (WAI score <37) n (%) Inadequate work ability (other criteria) Quality score Akodu and Ashalejo (2019)Nigeria Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 135 94.4% Nurses NR 40.2 ± 10.5 126 (93.3%) 8 (5.9%) 31 (23.0%) 39 (28.9%) – 10/13 Capelo et al. (2012)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 78 70.9% NursesNAP NR 33.1 ± 9.6 62 (79.5%) 1 (1.3%) 16 (21.0%) 17 (23.2%) – 9/13 Carel et al. (2013)Israel Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 515 NR Nurses Multispecialty 41.1 ± 9.8 460 (89.0%) 5 (1%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (1%) – 10/13 Da Silva et al. (2016)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 100 85.5% NursesNAP Multispecialty 39.4 ± 9.5 88 (88.0%) – – – 35 (35%) 12/13 Das et al. (2019)Bangladesh Journal article Crosssectional Random 197 NR Nurses Multispecialty 35.9 ± 8.0 187 (94.9%) NR NR 10 (7.1%) – 13/13 Duran and Cocco (2004)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 54 NR NursesNAP ED 37.3 ± NR 40 (74.1%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (13.2%) 7 (13.2%) – 10/13 Ehegartner et al. (2020)Germany Journal article Crosssectional Random 382 NR Nurses NR 40.1 ± 12.0 309 (81.0%) 67 (17.5%) 148 (38.7%) 215 (56.2%) – 11/13 Fischer and Martinez (2013) Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 514 83.8% NursesNAP Multispecialty 35.5 ± 8.1 397 (77.2%) NR NR 58 (11.3%) – 12/13 Fischer et al. (2006)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 696 69.9% NursesNAP NR 34.9 ± 10.5 611 (87.8%) NR NR 159 (22.8%) – 12/13 Fonseca (2012)Portugal Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 159 NR NursesNAP Multispecialty 36.5 ± 9.9 132 (83.0%) 9 (5.7%) 33 (20.8%) 42 (26.4%) – 12/13 Garosi et al. (2018)Iran Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 101 NR Nurses ICU 24.5 ± 3.6 71 (70.0%) 6 (5.9%) 27 (26.7%) 33 (32.7%) – 11/13 Golubic et al. (2009)Croatia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1086 78.0% Nurses Multispecialty 38.7 ± 10.3 1010 (93.0%) NR NR 380 (35.0%) – 12/13 Habibi et al. (2012)Iran Journal article Crosssectional Random 228 NR NursesNAP Multispecialty 38.4 ± 8.5 0 (0.0%) NR NR 63 (27.6%) – 10/13 Hilleshein et al. (2011)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 93 NR Nurses NR 41.7 ± 9.0 92 (98.9%) 0 (0.0%) 14 (15.1%) 14 (15.1%) – 9/13 Hoe et al. (2011)Australia Conference proceedings Longitudinal Convenience 768 69.1% Nurses NR NR NR 9 (1.2%) 56 (7.3%) 65 (8.5%) – 12/13 Izu et al. (2016)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 144 87.3% NursesNAP NR 46.4 ± 8.5 127 (88.2%) 5 (3.5%) 30 (20.8%) 35 (24.3%) – 11/13 Knežević et al. (2010)Croatia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1210 NR NursesNAP NR NR NR 67 (5.5%) 357 (29.5%) 424 (35.0%) – 13/13 Magnago et al. (2015)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 498 84.1% NursesNAP NR 41.3 ± 8.9 437 (87.8%) 29 (5.7%) 187 (37.6%) 216 (43.3%) – 12/13 Maia et al. (2014)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 455 NR Nurses NR 33.0 ± 9.6 368 (81%) 3 (0.7%). 55 (12.1%) 58 (12.8%) – 10/13 Martinez et al. (2017)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 514 83.8% NursesNAP Multispecialty 35.9 ± 9.0 410 (79.9%) – – – 49 (16.1%) 12/13 Martins (2002)Brazil Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 168 62.7% NursesNAP NR NR 156 (92.9%) 3 (1.8%) 24 (14.3%) 27 (16.1%) – 12/13 Melikidou and Sourtzi (2014) Greece Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 188 70% NursesNAP NR 35.6 ± 6.2 153 (83.0%) 7 (3.7%) 54 (28.7%) 61 (32.4%) – 10/13 Murassaki et al. (2013)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 260 88.1% NursesNAP NR NR 205 (78.9%) – – – 101 (38.85%) 12/13 Nery et al. (2013)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 24 100% NursesNAP ICU 40.0 ± 8.0 10 (41.6%) 0 (0%) 4 (17.0%) 4 (17.0%) – 10/13 Nowrouzi et al. (2015)Canada Journal article Crosssectional Random 111 80.4% Nurses Obstetric care 41.9 ± 10.2 105 (94.6%) NR NR 21 (29.2%) – 12/13 Nunes et al. (2013)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 109 NR NursesNAP NR 34.9 ± 10.0 92 (84.4%) NR NR 4 (3.7%) – 8/13 Oliveira (2016)Brazil Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 135 55.5% Nurses Multispecialty NR 110 (81.5%) 3 (2.2%) 22 (16.3%) 25 (18.5%) – 13/13 Pereira et al. (2021)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 54 90% NursesNAP Multispecialty NR 44 (81.5%) 3 (5.6%) 17 (31.5%) 20 (37.1%) – 12/13 Quispe Carbajal (2021)Peru Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 30 75% Nurses ICU NR 23 (76.7%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (13%) 4 (13.0%) – 12/13 Raffone and Hennington (2005) Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 465 52.5% Nurses Multispecialty 43 ± 6.3 406 (87.3%) NR NR 78 (16.8%) – 12/13 Rodrigues et al. (2019)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 164 NR NursesNAP NR NR 133 (81%) 5 (3.0%) 61 (37.0%) 66 (40.0%) – 13/13 Rongen et al. (2014)Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Slovakia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 9927 66% NursesNAP NR 42.1 ± 0.32 8805 (88.7%) NR NR 2430 (24%) – 12/13 | 517 WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL TABLE 2 Characteristics of the studies Author(s), year Country of the origin of sample Type of publication Study design type Sampling method Sample size (N) Sampling fraction (%) Professional categories Hospital unit Age in years (mean ± SD) Proportion of women n (%) Poor work ability (WAI score 7– 27) n (%) Moderate work ability (WAI score 28– 36) n (%) Inadequate work ability (WAI score <37) n (%) Inadequate work ability (other criteria) Quality score Akodu and Ashalejo (2019)Nigeria Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 135 94.4% Nurses NR 40.2 ± 10.5 126 (93.3%) 8 (5.9%) 31 (23.0%) 39 (28.9%) – 10/13 Capelo et al. (2012)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 78 70.9% NursesNAP NR 33.1 ± 9.6 62 (79.5%) 1 (1.3%) 16 (21.0%) 17 (23.2%) – 9/13 Carel et al. (2013)Israel Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 515 NR Nurses Multispecialty 41.1 ± 9.8 460 (89.0%) 5 (1%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (1%) – 10/13 Da Silva et al. (2016)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 100 85.5% NursesNAP Multispecialty 39.4 ± 9.5 88 (88.0%) – – – 35 (35%) 12/13 Das et al. (2019)Bangladesh Journal article Crosssectional Random 197 NR Nurses Multispecialty 35.9 ± 8.0 187 (94.9%) NR NR 10 (7.1%) – 13/13 Duran and Cocco (2004)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 54 NR NursesNAP ED 37.3 ± NR 40 (74.1%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (13.2%) 7 (13.2%) – 10/13 Ehegartner et al. (2020)Germany Journal article Crosssectional Random 382 NR Nurses NR 40.1 ± 12.0 309 (81.0%) 67 (17.5%) 148 (38.7%) 215 (56.2%) – 11/13 Fischer and Martinez (2013) Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 514 83.8% NursesNAP Multispecialty 35.5 ± 8.1 397 (77.2%) NR NR 58 (11.3%) – 12/13 Fischer et al. (2006)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 696 69.9% NursesNAP NR 34.9 ± 10.5 611 (87.8%) NR NR 159 (22.8%) – 12/13 Fonseca (2012)Portugal Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 159 NR NursesNAP Multispecialty 36.5 ± 9.9 132 (83.0%) 9 (5.7%) 33 (20.8%) 42 (26.4%) – 12/13 Garosi et al. (2018)Iran Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 101 NR Nurses ICU 24.5 ± 3.6 71 (70.0%) 6 (5.9%) 27 (26.7%) 33 (32.7%) – 11/13 Golubic et al. (2009)Croatia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1086 78.0% Nurses Multispecialty 38.7 ± 10.3 1010 (93.0%) NR NR 380 (35.0%) – 12/13 Habibi et al. (2012)Iran Journal article Crosssectional Random 228 NR NursesNAP Multispecialty 38.4 ± 8.5 0 (0.0%) NR NR 63 (27.6%) – 10/13 Hilleshein et al. (2011)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 93 NR Nurses NR 41.7 ± 9.0 92 (98.9%) 0 (0.0%) 14 (15.1%) 14 (15.1%) – 9/13 Hoe et al. (2011)Australia Conference proceedings Longitudinal Convenience 768 69.1% Nurses NR NR NR 9 (1.2%) 56 (7.3%) 65 (8.5%) – 12/13 Izu et al. (2016)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 144 87.3% NursesNAP NR 46.4 ± 8.5 127 (88.2%) 5 (3.5%) 30 (20.8%) 35 (24.3%) – 11/13 Knežević et al. (2010)Croatia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1210 NR NursesNAP NR NR NR 67 (5.5%) 357 (29.5%) 424 (35.0%) – 13/13 Magnago et al. (2015)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 498 84.1% NursesNAP NR 41.3 ± 8.9 437 (87.8%) 29 (5.7%) 187 (37.6%) 216 (43.3%) – 12/13 Maia et al. (2014)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 455 NR Nurses NR 33.0 ± 9.6 368 (81%) 3 (0.7%). 55 (12.1%) 58 (12.8%) – 10/13 Martinez et al. (2017)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 514 83.8% NursesNAP Multispecialty 35.9 ± 9.0 410 (79.9%) – – – 49 (16.1%) 12/13 Martins (2002)Brazil Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 168 62.7% NursesNAP NR NR 156 (92.9%) 3 (1.8%) 24 (14.3%) 27 (16.1%) – 12/13 Melikidou and Sourtzi (2014) Greece Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 188 70% NursesNAP NR 35.6 ± 6.2 153 (83.0%) 7 (3.7%) 54 (28.7%) 61 (32.4%) – 10/13 Murassaki et al. (2013)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 260 88.1% NursesNAP NR NR 205 (78.9%) – – – 101 (38.85%) 12/13 Nery et al. (2013)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 24 100% NursesNAP ICU 40.0 ± 8.0 10 (41.6%) 0 (0%) 4 (17.0%) 4 (17.0%) – 10/13 Nowrouzi et al. (2015)Canada Journal article Crosssectional Random 111 80.4% Nurses Obstetric care 41.9 ± 10.2 105 (94.6%) NR NR 21 (29.2%) – 12/13 Nunes et al. (2013)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 109 NR NursesNAP NR 34.9 ± 10.0 92 (84.4%) NR NR 4 (3.7%) – 8/13 Oliveira (2016)Brazil Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 135 55.5% Nurses Multispecialty NR 110 (81.5%) 3 (2.2%) 22 (16.3%) 25 (18.5%) – 13/13 Pereira et al. (2021)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 54 90% NursesNAP Multispecialty NR 44 (81.5%) 3 (5.6%) 17 (31.5%) 20 (37.1%) – 12/13 Quispe Carbajal (2021)Peru Dissertation Crosssectional Convenience 30 75% Nurses ICU NR 23 (76.7%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (13%) 4 (13.0%) – 12/13 Raffone and Hennington (2005) Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 465 52.5% Nurses Multispecialty 43 ± 6.3 406 (87.3%) NR NR 78 (16.8%) – 12/13 Rodrigues et al. (2019)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 164 NR NursesNAP NR NR 133 (81%) 5 (3.0%) 61 (37.0%) 66 (40.0%) – 13/13 Rongen et al. (2014)Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Slovakia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 9927 66% NursesNAP NR 42.1 ± 0.32 8805 (88.7%) NR NR 2430 (24%) – 12/13 (Continues) 518 | WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL settings (primary care) were also excluded unless data from hospital nursing personnel could be extracted independently. Reports published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, Croatian, and Greek were included. Only four studies were excluded due to publication languages, three in Chinese and one in Persian. No restrictions on the publication date were applied. Both original peerreviewed articles and gray literature (conference proceedings, conference abstract, and dissertations) were included. Information sources and search strategy A systematic search was performed to identify relevant reports in the following databases: Web of Science (WOS), Medline/PubMed (WOS interface), CINAHL, Scopus, Lilacs, PsycINFO, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Scielo (WOS interface). A partial gray literature search was also performed on Google Scholar, limited to the first 50 most relevant reports retrieved. The search strategy was developed by the research team and then peer reviewed by a researcher with experience in bibliographic searches outside the project. (“work ability index”) AND (nurse*) AND (hospital*) was the general search strategy used, adapted to the syntax and subject headings of the databases. The searches were performed separately by two experienced researchers in the literature search in all databases where no limits were imposed. More detailed information on search strategies is provided in Table 1. To address the saturation of the literature, reference lists of the selected literature were also manually searched to obtain additional relevant studies. Additionally, some articles that were not recovered from the database search but were previously known to the research team to be relevant to this review were included. Selection process To ensure the reliability of the study selection process, it was carried out by two members of the review team independently. The selection process started with screening titles and abstracts, followed by full reading for the initially selected studies. The full texts of eligible studies were then retrieved as far as possible to corroborate this. To resolve any disagreement, a third member of the review team was consulted. Discarded studies were classified according to the reason for exclusion. Finally, the same members of the research team conducted an inverse search, searching potentially eligible items in the reference lists of included studies, repeating the previous process. See the PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021), Diagram 1. Data collection process The following data were extracted: Authors, year of publication, origin country of the sample, type of publication (journal article, conference proceedings or dissertation), study design (crosssectional vs. longitudinal), sampling method (convenience vs. random), sample size (N), sampling fraction (%), professional category (nurses vs. nurses/Nursing Assistive Personnel), hospital unit, age in years (mean SD), proportion of women (n— %), prevalence of poor work ability (n— %), prevalence of moderate work ability (n— %), and prevalence of inadequate work Author(s), year Country of the origin of sample Type of publication Study design type Sampling method Sample size (N) Sampling fraction (%) Professional categories Hospital unit Age in years (mean ± SD) Proportion of women n (%) Poor work ability (WAI score 7– 27) n (%) Moderate work ability (WAI score 28– 36) n (%) Inadequate work ability (WAI score <37) n (%) Inadequate work ability (other criteria) Quality score Rostamabadi et al. (2017)Iran Journal article Crosssectional Random 214 85.60% Nurses ICU 28.9 ± 4.1 172 (80.4%) – – – 37 (17.8%) poor 55 (25.7%) moderate 12/13 Rotenberg et al. (2008)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1248 74% NursesNAP NR NR 1092 (87.5%) – – – Females: 1092 (40.5%) Males: 156 (25.6%) 12/13 Rotenberg et al. (2009)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1194 70.8% NursesNAP NR 40.3 ± 13.1 1039 (87%) – – – 464 (38.9%) 12/13 Rypicz et al. (2021)Poland Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 349 96.9% Nurses Multispecialty 46.9 ± 9.7 347 (99.4) 60a (17.2%) 162a (46.4%) 222a (66.6%) – 12/13 Silva et al. (2018)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 110 NR NursesNAP Multispecialty 39.5 ± 9.2 990 (90.0%) 5 (4.5%) 37 (33.6%) 42 (38.1%) – 9/13 Silva et al. (2019)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 375 72.7% NursesNAP NR 41.5 ± 9.2 327 (87.2%) 39 (10.4%) 103 (27.5%) 142 (37.9%) – 12/13 Sopajareeya (2020)Thailand Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 260 83.3% NursesNAP NR 39.5 ± NR 250 (96.3%) 1 (0.4%) 137 (52.8%) 138 (53.2%) – 12/13 Sorić et al. (2013)Croatia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1101 65% Nurses NR 42 ± NR 987 (88%) NR NR 395 (35.8%) – 12/13 Vasconcelos et al. (2011)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 272 86.8% NursesNAP ED 41.7 ± 9.3 223 (82%) NR NR NR 110 (40.8%) 12/13 Vilela et al. (2013)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 43 66.1% NursesNAP NR 34.9 ± 9.2 38 (88.4%) NR NR 7 (16.3%) NR 8/13 Abbreviations: ED, Emergency Department; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; NAP, Nursing Assistive Personnel; NR, Nonreported. aData provided by the authors. TABLE 2 (Continued) | 519 WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL ability (n— %). Data were extracted in duplicate by two researchers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus between the research team. The sample size and the crude prevalence rate of poor and moderate work ability among nursing personnel were collected from the results of the studies. These categories were determined by the WAI cutoff points according to its instructions (Tuomi et al., 1988), since poor work ability is represented by a WAI score in the range of 7– 27 and moderate by a WAI score in the range of 28– 36. Inadequate work ability is a merged category that combines the two previous categories (low and moderate) and therefore is represented by a WAI score <37. Data from studies using a different criterion for inadequate work ability than the one described were coded separately. If the crude prevalence rate was not reported directly, two investigators independently performed the appropriate calculations based on the data provided by the study results. The corresponding authors of the studies in which prevalence data were not reported were contacted to request data. In the case of longitudinal studies, baseline prevalence data were extracted for analysis. Risk of bias in individual studies The instrument proposed in the critical appraisal guide of observational studies in epidemiology (Ciapponi, 2010) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. All were independently reviewed by two researchers to ensure the internal validity of the studies in three dimensions of the instrument, which consisted of 13 items: participants (items 2– 6), definition and measurement of key variables (items 11– 14), and statistical analysis and confounder variables (items 15– 18). The degree of compliance statement represented by each item was first evaluated in five categories (“very good, good, fair, poor, or not informative”). The quality of the study can be considered high if most statements are answered as “very good” or “good” (Ciapponi, 2010). Therefore, for ease of reporting, a score was assigned to each individual study. For this purpose, a point was assigned for each item whose compliance with the statement it represents was rated as "very good" or "good," and no points were assigned in all other cases. These ratings were not used as a criterion for study eligibility. Data analysis The Freeman– Tukey double arcsine method (Miller, 1978) was used to calculate the prevalence rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each individual study. Then, an inversevarianceweighted randomeffects metaanalysis was performed by conventional methods (DerSimonian & Laird, 1986). A random effects model is recommended for the metaanalysis of prevalence when heterogeneity is observed in prevalence estimates between studies, as in the case of this study, as a fixed effects model is likely to produce misleading results in the presence of significant heterogeneity (Wang & Liu, 2016). Three independent metaanalyses were performed to calculate the pooled prevalence of poor, moderate, and inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed defined by the mean age range (under 40 vs. over 40), professional categories (nurses vs. nurses/Nursing Assistive Personnel), and origin country of the sample (Brazil vs. the rest of the world) to control for a possible confounding factor, due to the fact that half of the studies included and, consequently, a large Author(s), year Country of the origin of sample Type of publication Study design type Sampling method Sample size (N) Sampling fraction (%) Professional categories Hospital unit Age in years (mean ± SD) Proportion of women n (%) Poor work ability (WAI score 7– 27) n (%) Moderate work ability (WAI score 28– 36) n (%) Inadequate work ability (WAI score <37) n (%) Inadequate work ability (other criteria) Quality score Rostamabadi et al. (2017)Iran Journal article Crosssectional Random 214 85.60% Nurses ICU 28.9 ± 4.1 172 (80.4%) – – – 37 (17.8%) poor 55 (25.7%) moderate 12/13 Rotenberg et al. (2008)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1248 74% NursesNAP NR NR 1092 (87.5%) – – – Females: 1092 (40.5%) Males: 156 (25.6%) 12/13 Rotenberg et al. (2009)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1194 70.8% NursesNAP NR 40.3 ± 13.1 1039 (87%) – – – 464 (38.9%) 12/13 Rypicz et al. (2021)Poland Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 349 96.9% Nurses Multispecialty 46.9 ± 9.7 347 (99.4) 60a (17.2%) 162a (46.4%) 222a (66.6%) – 12/13 Silva et al. (2018)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 110 NR NursesNAP Multispecialty 39.5 ± 9.2 990 (90.0%) 5 (4.5%) 37 (33.6%) 42 (38.1%) – 9/13 Silva et al. (2019)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 375 72.7% NursesNAP NR 41.5 ± 9.2 327 (87.2%) 39 (10.4%) 103 (27.5%) 142 (37.9%) – 12/13 Sopajareeya (2020)Thailand Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 260 83.3% NursesNAP NR 39.5 ± NR 250 (96.3%) 1 (0.4%) 137 (52.8%) 138 (53.2%) – 12/13 Sorić et al. (2013)Croatia Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 1101 65% Nurses NR 42 ± NR 987 (88%) NR NR 395 (35.8%) – 12/13 Vasconcelos et al. (2011)Brazil Journal article Crosssectional Convenience 272 86.8% NursesNAP ED 41.7 ± 9.3 223 (82%) NR NR NR 110 (40.8%) 12/13 Vilela et al. (2013)Portugal Conference proceedings Crosssectional Convenience 43 66.1% NursesNAP NR 34.9 ± 9.2 38 (88.4%) NR NR 7 (16.3%) NR 8/13 Abbreviations: ED, Emergency Department; ICU, Intensive Care Unit; NAP, Nursing Assistive Personnel; NR, Nonreported. aData provided by the authors. 520 | WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL part of the sample (20%) came from a single country, Brazil. No other subgroup analyses could be performed due to the small number of studies in some categories (e.g., type of publication, study design, and sampling method) and the homogeneity of studies with regard to other characteristics (e.g., proportion of women, since only one study did not exceed 70% of women in the total sample). Heterogeneity between individual studies was evaluated using Cochran Q test statistics, considering that heterogeneity was present if the pvalue is less than 0.10 (10%) (Hoaglin, 2016). The degree of inconsistency between studies was measured using Higgins’ I2 test statistic in a metaanalysis, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% considered low, moderate, and high inconsistency, respectively FIGURE 1 Forest plot for individual studies (square) and overall summary (diamond) of the prevalence of inadequate work ability. The lines indicate the 95% confidence interval. Studies are listed alphabetically | 521 WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL (Higgins et al., 2003). The consistency of the results was assessed by performing sensitivity analyses by excluding any study one by one and seeing that the results did not change substantially. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's linear regression, with a pvalue less than 0.05 implicating publication bias (Egger et al., 1997). StatsDirect software was used for all statistical analyses described previously. RESULTS Study selection The selection process is reported in detail in the PRIMA flow diagram (Page et al., 2021) (Diagram 1). A total of 267 reports were initially found: 259 in electronic databases and 8 through other methods. After removing duplicates from the database search result, the titles and abstracts of 104 studies were selected, and 86 were considered potentially relevant studies for fulltext reading. The eight additional records identified by other methods were also considered. Five articles could not be retrieved in full text despite the efforts made to retrieve them by various means. A total of 47 articles were excluded for the nominated reasons specified in Diagram 1: 44 from databases and 3 retrieved using alternative methods. Finally, 42 studies (Akodu & Ashalejo, 2019; Capelo et al., 2012; Carel et al., 2013; Das et al., 2019; Duran & Cocco, 2004; Ehegartner et al., 2020; Fischer & Martinez, 2013; Fonseca, 2012; Garosi et al., 2018; Golubic et al., 2009; Habibi et al., 2012; Hilleshein et al., 2011; Hoe et al., 2011; Izu et al., 2016; Knežević et al., 2010; Magnago et al., 2015; Maia et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2006; Martinez et al., 2017; Martins, 2002; Melikidou & Sourtzi, 2014; Murassaki et al., 2013; Nery et al., 2013; Nowrouzi et al., 2015; Nunes et al., 2013; Oliveira, 2016; Pereira et al., 2021; Quispe Carbajal, 2021; Raffone & Hennington, 2005; Rodrigues et al., 2019; Rongen et al., 2014; Rostamabadi et al., 2017; Rotenberg et al., 2008, 2009; Rypicz et al., 2021; Silva et al., 2016, FIGURE 2 Forest plot for individual studies (square) and overall summary (diamond) of the prevalence of poor work ability. The lines indicate the 95% confidence interval. Studies are listed alphabetically 528 | WORK ABILITY AMONG HOSPITAL NURSING PERSONNEL Rypicz, Ł., Witczak, I., Rosińczuk, J., Karniej, P., & Kołcz, A. (2021). Factors affecting work ability index among polish nurses working in hospitals – A prospective observational survey. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(3), 468– 476. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13192 Silva, S. M., Silva, F. J., Baptista, P. C. P., Almeida, M. C. dos S., Martinez, M. C., & Soares, R. A. de Q. (2019). Resiliência e capacidade para o trabalho em trabalhadores de enfermagem [Resilience and work ability in nursing workers] [Resiliencia y capacidad laboral en trabajadores de enfermería]. Revista Enfermagem UERJ, 27. https://doi. org/10.12957/ reuerj.2019.45731 Silva, T. P. D. da, Araújo, W. N. de, Stival, M. M., Toledo, A. M. de, Burke, T. N., & Carregaro, R. L. (2018). Desconforto musculoesquelético, capacidade de trabalho e fadiga em profissionais da enfermagem que atuam em ambiente hospitalar. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 52. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 5 9 0 / s 1 9 8 0 - 2 2 0 x 2 0 1 7 0 2 2 9 0 3 3 3 2 Sopajareeya, C. (2020). Low back pain and work ability among Thai nurses. In N. J. Lightner & J. Kalra (Eds.), Advances in human factors and ergonomics in healthcare and medical devices (pp. 167– 174). Springer International Publishing. Sorić, M., Golubić, R., Milosević, M., Juras, K., & Mustajbegović, J. (2013). Shift work, quality of life and work ability among Croatian hospital nurses. Collegium Antropologicum, 37(2), 379– 384. Spoorthy, M. S., Pratapa, S. K., & Mahant, S. (2020). Mental health problems faced by healthcare workers due to the COVID19 pandemicA review. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102119. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102119 Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in metaanalysis: A comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 18(20), 2 6 9 3 – 2 7 0 8 . https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10970258(19991 030)18:20<2 6 9 3 : A I D - S I M 2 3 5 >3.0.CO;2V Török, E., Clark, A. J., Ersbøll, A. K., Bjorner, J. B., Holtermann, A., Rugulies, R., LaMontagne, A. D., Milner, A., & Rod, N. H. (2020). Physical workload, longterm sickness absence, and the role of social capital. Multilevel analysis of a large occupation cohort. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 46(4), 373– 381. https://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstr act.php?abstr act_id=3874 Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Jahkola, A., Katajarinne, L., & Tulkki, A. (1988). Work ability index (2nd ed.). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Seitsamo, J., Huuhtanen, P., Martikainen, R., Nygård, C.- H., & Klockars, M. (1997). Summary of the Finnish research project (1981– 1992) to promote the health and work ability of aging workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 23, 66– 71. https://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstr act.php?abstr act_id=214 van den Berg, T. I. J., Elders, L. A. M., de Zwart, B. C. H., & Burdorf, A. (2009). The effects of workrelated and individual factors on the work ability index: A systematic review. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66(4), 211. https://doi.org/10.1136/ oem.2008.039883 Vasconcelos, S. P., Fischer, F. M., Reis, A. O. A., Moreno, C. R. de C. (2011). Fatores associados à capacidade para o trabalho e percepção de fadiga em trabalhadores de enfermagem da Amazônia ocidental. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 14(4), 688– 697. https://doi. o r g / 1 0 . 1 5 9 0 / S 1 4 1 5 - 7 9 0 X 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 5 Vilela, J., Cotrim, T. P., & Silva, C. F. (2013). Work ability and staff satisfaction in two inpatient wards of a private hospital. In J. S. Baptista, M. P. Barroso, P. Carneiro, P. Cordeiro, N. Costa, R. Melo, A. S. Miguel, & G. Perestrelo (Eds.), Occupational safety and hygiene - SHO2013 (pp. 445– 446). Portuguese Society of Occupational Safety and Hygiene (SPOSHO). von Bonsdorff, M. B., Seitsamo, J., Ilmarinen, J., Nygård, C.- H., von Bonsdorff, M. E., & Rantanen, T. (2011). Work ability in midlife as a predictor of mortality and disability in later life: A 28year prospective followup study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 183(4), E235– E242. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.100713 Wang, K.- S., & Liu, X. (2016). Statistical methods in the metaanalysis of prevalence of human diseases. Journal of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, 2(1). https://jbe.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jbe/artic le/ view/46 World Health Organization. (2012). National profile of occupational health system in Finland. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. https:// www.euro.who.int/__data/asset s/pdf_file/0016/16052 2/e96482. pdf World Health Organization. (2020). State of the world’s nursing 2020: Investing in education, jobs and leadership. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitst reams/ 12742 01/ retrieve How to cite this article: RomeroSánchez, J. M., PorcelGálvez, A. M., PalomaCastro, O., GarcíaJiménez, J., GonzálezDomínguez, M. E., PalomarAumatell, X., & FernándezGarcía, E. (2021). Worldwide prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 54, 513– 528. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12749