Quality of Work Life of Health Workforce in North Aceh District
Keywords:
Health Workforce, Model Development, Quality of Work LifeAbstract
Quality of life is the most important factor in health status. According to WHO data from 2019, the average HALE of the Indonesian population is 62.8 years, which means that 8.5 years are lost due to poor quality of life caused by illness and disability. The purpose of this study is to develop a model of quality of work life for health workforce in the era of regional autonomy. This study is a quantitative study using purposive sampling techniques with data analysis in the form of SEM-PLS analysis techniques. The population in this study was health workforce in 32 community health centres in North Aceh District, total 4,427 health workforce, with a research sample of 330 health workforce. The results of the study indicate that the direct variables affecting work life quality are motivational climate (p=0.000; t-stat=13.392) and career development (p=0.000; t-stat=8.658), while other variables that do not influence the quality of work life for healthcare workforce are organizational commitment (p=0.417; t-stat=0.812) and a healthy work environment (p=0.176; t-stat=1.354). Additionally, the research results also indicate that there are indirect variables that influence performance through work life quality, namely a healthy work environment (p=0.000; t-stat=6.125), career development (p=0.000; t-stat=6.724), and work life quality (p=0.001; t-stat=3.318). Variables that do not influence performance through work life quality include organizational commitment (p=0.439; t-stat=0.774) and motivational climate (p=0.062; t-stat=1.867). Motivational climate and career development have a significant influence on the quality of work life of health workforce, while a healthy work environment, career development, and quality of work life have a significant influence on performance through the quality of work life of health workforce. Organizational commitment does not have a significant influence either directly on the quality of work life or indirectly on performance through the quality of work life of health workforce.
References
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2021). Profil Statistik Kesehatan 2021.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.
Heri, L., Cicih, M., Darojad, D., & Agung, N. (2022). Lansia di Era Bonus Demografi Older Person in the Era of demographic dividend. Jurnal Kependudukan Indonesia, 17(1), 2022. https://doi.org/10.14203/jki.v17i1.636
Kementerian Kesehatan RI. (2019). Indeks Pembangunan Kesehatan Masyarakat Membaik Dalam 5 Tahun . P2PTM Kemenkes RI.
Maulidia. (2022). Kinerja Pegawai Negeri Sipil Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia (BPSDM) Provinsi Aceh. UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh.
Salleh, H., Abdullah, N. A. H., & Ismail, R. (2013). Organizational Commitment: A review on the antecedents and consequences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 157–164.
Simanjuntak, B. (2005). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Tarmizi, S. N. (2023). Turunkan Angka Kematian Ibu melalui Deteksi Dini dengan Pemenuhan USG di Puskesmas. Kementerian Kesehatan RI.
Walton, R. E. (1973). Quality of Working Life: What Is It? In Review (Vol. 15).
Wyatt, T., & Wah, C. Y. (2001). Perception of QWL: a Study of Singaporean Employees Development. Management Memo, 8–17.
Zulkarnain, EDJ Ginting, AA Adnans, MM Sianturi. (2024). Organisational justice and work-family conflict: Impact to quality of work life. SA Journal of Human Resource Management. (Vol. 22). AOSIS.
