IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v22y2020i3p507-520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What occupational preference types dominate among nurses and paramedics with implications for wellbeing?: A scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Rod Mason
  • John Roodenburg
  • Brett Williams

Abstract

Understanding the occupational typological nature of nursing and paramedicine and the typological preferences of these within the professions offers significant evidence of factors that can facilitate wellbeing and efficiencies. Arksey and O'Malley's five‐stage scoping methodology was used to review the literature. The research question used to guide this scoping review was: Which Holland code is more dominant among nurses and paramedics? Nine articles were included in this review, from which two broad themes emerged: Job satisfaction/academic success; and personality‐employment fit across gender and subgroups within the same occupation. While the Social (S) personality type dominated across the studies for both nurses and paramedics, overall, the studies identified various combinations of the personality profile and, in some cases, personality types foreign to the occupation also formed part of the Holland code. Congruence can be thought of as playing an important role in nurses’/paramedics’ overall well‐being regardless of the order of their three dominant personality types.

Suggested Citation

  • Rod Mason & John Roodenburg & Brett Williams, 2020. "What occupational preference types dominate among nurses and paramedics with implications for wellbeing?: A scoping review," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 507-520, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:22:y:2020:i:3:p:507-520
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12699
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:22:y:2020:i:3:p:507-520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1442-2018 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.