Introduction

As the global population continues to age rapidly, enabling older adults to age in place, which refers to their ability to remain in their own homes and communities as they grow older, has emerged as a shared priority across health and social care systems [1]. This shift reflects not only the preferences of older adults but also broader policy and economic imperatives to reduce reliance on institutional care and to promote autonomy, dignity, and quality of life [2,3]. To advance this goal, several countries have adopted integrated community care models that combine health and social services to support aging in place. These systems underscore the importance of workforce capacity, care coordination, and relational care as essential components of sustainable aging in place strategies [4,5].

Introduced in 2008, the Long-Term Care (LTC) Insurance system provides home- and institution-based services to support older adults with functional limitations [6]. Home care workers make up about 89% of the LTC workforce and play an increasingly central role as national policy shifts toward community-based services [7]. These care workers provide assistance with essential daily activities, such as feeding, toileting, mobility, emotional support, and household tasks, which are often delivered in unstandardized home environments and under conditions of social and professional isolation [8].

With the expanding role of home-visit care workers, understanding the factors that influence their work engagement has become increasingly important. Compared to institutional care, home care involves distinct challenges, including elevated emotional labor, ambiguous role boundaries, and environmental risks. [9]. However, this context allows for positive relationships with care recipients and may provide a sense of autonomy and purpose [10].

Work engagement in healthcare professions is not merely a personal disposition but is intrinsically connected to the quality of care provided [11]. Higher levels of work engagement are essential in fostering person-centered care, enhancing patient satisfaction, and improving the overall quality of care through increased emotional support and trust toward care recipients [12-13]. Furthermore, in demanding work environments where burnout and turnover intention are common, work engagement serves as a protective factor that alleviates these adverse outcomes and contributes to sustainable workforce retention [14]. Although crucial, few empirical studies have investigated what drives job engagement among home-visit care workers, particularly in South Korea. Most existing research has focused on nurses and social workers in institutional environments [15], thereby limiting the applicability of these findings in the home care context.

Considering these dynamics, the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model provides a valuable framework for examining work engagement among home-visit care workers. The model highlights how excessive job demands, such as emotional labor, can lead to burnout, while job resources—like personal health and the quality of relationships with care recipients—can foster motivation and engagement [16-19]. However, empirical applications of this model to Korean home-visit care workers remain limited.

Previous studies have reported that factors associated with work engagement among home care workers include physical health status, emotional exhaustion, relationship conflict, the physical work environment, reward systems, and professional expertise [20-22]. Drawing upon these findings, the present study conceptualizes emotional labor as a key job demand, while self-rated health status, the quality of relationships with care recipient, and satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety supports are identified as core job resources. These variables were selected to reflect both the psychosocial and environmental dimensions of home-based care work, and to align with factors established in prior empirical research.

Accordingly, this study aims to address this gap by applying the JD-R model to identify the factors associated with work engagement among home-visit care workers. By focusing on both job demands and resources, this research seeks to inform future strategies that support workforce sustainability and enhance the quality of long-term care services for older adults aging in place.

Methods

Study design

This study employed a descriptive correlational design to identify factors associated with work engagement among home-visit care workers based on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model [16,23]. A secondary data analysis was conducted using the raw dataset from the 2020 Survey on the Service Environment of Home-visit Care Workers (Figure 1).

Participants and data collection

This study used raw data from the 2020 Survey on the Service Environment of Home-visit Care Workers conducted by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHASA) between August 5 and September 30, 2020 [24]. The survey targeted home-visit care workers providing services in Seoul and Chungcheong regions of South Korea. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires distributed to home care agencies and returned through post.

Only data from home-visit care workers who provided services to single care recipients were included in the analysis. This criterion was applied to minimize the potential confounding effects emerging from mixed client characteristics when a single home care worker served multiple recipients. Home care workers assigned to more than one care recipient were excluded from the analysis (Figure 2). The original survey did not apply sampling weights; therefore, no weighting adjustments were made in this analysis.

Measurements

1. Work engagement

Work engagement was measured using a modified version of the Korean-language Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), originally developed by Schaufeli et al [25]. and adapted for home-visit care workers. The instrument consisted of nine items covering three subdomains: vigor, dedication, and absorption (three items each). While the original version employed a 7-point Likert scale, we used a validated Korean 5-point Likert scale. Higher total scores indicated greater levels of work engagement. In this study, internal consistency reliability was Cronbach’s α=.94

2. Emotional labor

Emotional labor was assessed using a nine-item scale adapted from Morris and Feldman [26], with contextual modifications for home-visit care work. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), yielding a total score ranging from 9 to 45. Higher scores reflected greater emotional labor. Cronbach’s α in the current study was .89.

3. Satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety supports

Satisfaction was assessed using a single item: “How satisfied are you with the facilities provided to support the care recipient’s mobility (e.g., safety handles, non-slip devices)?” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied.” Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the physical environment for safe mobility.

4. Self-rated health status

Self-rated health was measured using a single item commonly used as a valid proxy for general health [27]. “How would you rate your current health status?” Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1=very healthy to 5=not healthy at all). Scores were reverse-coded for analysis such that higher scores indicated better perceived health (range: 1–5).

5. Relationship quality with care recipient

Relationship quality was measured using a single item: “How satisfied are you with your relationship with the care recipient?” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied,” with higher scores reflecting stronger perceived relationship quality.

6. Sociodemographic and job-related characteristics

Participants’ characteristics included age, gender, education level, weekly working hours, monthly income, and duration of work as a certified care worker. Information on care recipients included their physical functioning (categorized as independent, assisted mobility, mobility with a device, or bedridden), dementia diagnosis, and LTC grade. In Korea, LTC grades are assigned through a national assessment system, ranging from level 1 (most dependent) to level 5 (least dependent).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0. Descriptive statistics, like frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were calculated to summarize the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, job-related factors, and scores for major study variables (i.e., work engagement, emotional labor, satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety support, self-rated health status, and relationship quality with the care recipient).

Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to examine bivariate relationships between the main continuous variables. Group differences in work engagement based on sociodemographic and job-related characteristics were tested using independent t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with work engagement. In Model 1, job demand variables were entered. In Model 2, job resource variables were added to assess their incremental contributions in explaining work engagement.

Ethical considerations

The 2020 Survey on the Service Environment of Home-visit Care Workers was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (Approval Date: July 3, 2020; Approval No. 2020-39). Raw data were obtained through KIHASA Health and Welfare Data Portal. Secondary data analysis was reviewed and exempted by the IRB of the researcher’s affiliated institution (IRB No. HYUIRB-202504-007).

Results

Sociodemographic and work-related characteristics of participants

The mean age of the participants was 59.73±7.29 years, and 96.9% (n=493) were female. Regarding educational level, 60.7% (n=309), 23.0% (n=117), and 16.3% (n=83) had completed high school, middle school or lower, and college or higher, respectively (Table 1). Regarding weekly working hours, 80.7% (n=411) worked 15 to 19.9 hours per week. Most participants (93.5%, n=476) reported a monthly income of less than KRW 1,000,000 (approximately USD 750).

The mean duration of their work experience as a certified care worker was 49.99±38.97 Months. Among the participants, 27.9% (n=142) had between one to three years of experience. Among the care recipients, 47.2% (n=238) required mobility with assistive devices and 41.5% (n=211) had been diagnosed with dementia. The most common LTC grade was Grade 4 (52.3%, n=266).

Descriptive and correlational analysis of major variables associated with work engagement

The mean score for work engagement was 32.48±5.19, whereas the mean emotional labor score was 24.80±6.15 (Table 2). Mean self-rated health status score was 4.00±0.71. The mean score for relationship quality with the care recipient and satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety supports were 3.89±0.73 and 3.20±0.93, respectively.

Work engagement was significantly correlated with emotional labor (r=–.32, p<.001), self-rated health status (r=.19, p<.001), relationship quality with care recipients (r=.27, p<.001), and satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety support (r=.16, p<.001).

Differences in work engagement by sociodemographic and job-related characteristics

Differences in work engagement according to participants’ sociodemographic and work-related characteristics are presented in Table 3. No statistically significant differences in work engagement were observed across any demographic or job-related variables examined.

Factors associated with work engagement among home care workers

Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors associated with work engagement (Table 4). Prior to the analysis, such as linearity, independence of residuals, normality, and homoscedasticity assumptions were tested. Cook’s distance values were reviewed for outliers and no undue influence was detected. The Durbin–Watson statistic was 1.67, indicating no autocorrelation among the residuals and confirming the suitability of the regression model. Multicollinearity diagnostics showed tolerance values ranging from .87 to 1.00 and variance inflation factor values ranging from 1.00 to 1.15, indicating no multicollinearity.

In Model 1, emotional labor showed significant correlations with work engagement in the bivariate analysis and were entered as predictor. The model was statistically significant (F = 58.42, p<.001) with R²=.10. Emotional labor was significantly and negatively associated with work engagement (β = –.32, p< .001).

In Model 2, self-rated health status, relationship quality with care recipients and Satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety supports (job resource variables) were included as additional factors. This model was statistically significant (F=26.47, p<.001), and the explained variance increased to R²=.17, indicating an R² change of .07 compared to Model 1. In the Model 2, emotional labor (β= –.26, p<.001), self-rated health status (β=.17, p< .001), and relationship quality with the care recipient (β=.18, p<.001) were statistically significant factors of work engagement, whereas satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety supports was not statistically significant.

Discussion

This study aimed to identify the factors associated with work engagement among home-visit care workers serving older adults based on the JD-R model. In applying the JD-R framework, emotional labor and satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety support were conceptualized as job demands because both reflect aspects of the caregiving environment that may impose psychological or physical strain. In contrast, self-rated health status and the quality of the relationship with care recipients were considered job resources considering their potential to support resilience and sustain engagement in challenging care contexts. By integrating environmental- and individual-level factors, this study sought to explore how specific demands and resources interact to influence work engagement in cognitively and emotionally demanding home care contexts.

The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in work engagement among home-visit care workers based on whether the care recipient had a cognitive disorder. This suggests that the presence of a cognitive disorder such as dementia may not be a decisive factor in diminishing work engagement. This finding is inconsistent with previous studies indicating that the severity of care recipients’ conditions increases caregiver burden, which negatively affects job involvement [28].

These findings underscore the importance of examining broader contextual factors such as organizational support systems, which may exert a stronger influence on work engagement than the clinical characteristics of care recipients [29]. Further comprehensive analyses that incorporate these additional aspects are needed to expand the understanding of the factors that sustain work engagement in cognitively demanding care contexts.

Regression results showed that higher levels of emotional labor were associated with lower levels of work engagement. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting that frequent in-person interactions with care recipients can lead to emotional dissonance among home-visit care workers, thereby increasing emotional exhaustion and diminishing work engagement [30,31]. This finding also supports the burnout process described in the JD-R model, in which excessive job demands, particularly in emotionally taxing and unstructured work environments, are associated with negative outcomes when adequate organizational resources are lacking [32]. Therefore, implementing effective interventions, such as emotion regulation training, expression management, and enhanced in-house psychological support, is essential to mitigate the adverse effects of emotional labor.

Self-rated health was identified as a significant positive predictor of work engagement. This finding is consistent with the motivational pathway of the JD-R model, which posits that individual resources such as health enhance resilience and coping capacity, thereby sustaining engagement [33]. In the context of home care, home-visit care workers’ health is essential for maintaining service quality and supporting long-term job commitment. These results suggest a necessary shift in perspective: care workers’ health should be regarded not merely as an individual responsibility but as a shared organizational resource. Accordingly, agencies should adopt proactive, health-oriented workforce strategies such as regular health screenings, musculoskeletal injury prevention programs, mental health support, and flexible scheduling systems.

The quality of relationships with care recipients was significantly positively associated with work engagement. This finding supports the assertion of the JD-R model that job resources, particularly those that provide emotional support and meaningful interactions, are associated with higher engagement [34]. Considering the in-person and long-term nature of home care, the emotional dynamics within caregiver recipient relationships can positively influence care workers’ affective states and job attitudes. These results are consistent with previous research on customer–member exchange, suggesting that reciprocal and respectful relationships enhance job satisfaction and engagement [35].

Therefore, organizations should comprehensively communicate the scope of care services and professional roles of care workers to clients and their families at the outset of service provision. Communication and conflict management training should be integrated into caregiver education to support the development of healthy relationships. These organizational efforts must be accompanied by policy-level recognition of the emotional and relational aspects of care work, which are critical for legitimizing care workers’ roles and sustaining their engagement and retention in the community care sector [36]. Such strategies can help reduce relational conflict, improve job satisfaction, and contribute to more stable and high-quality care provision.

Satisfaction with in-home mobility and safety support was not significantly associated with work engagement in Model 2. Although bivariate correlations indicated a positive relationship, this effect disappeared in the multivariate model. Within the JD-R framework, this suggests that environmental resources may play a contextual rather than a direct role and have relatively weaker explanatory power compared with stronger personal and relational resources, such as self-rated health and relationship quality with care recipients. One possible explanation is that care workers’ engagement is shaped less by environmental conditions themselves than by how these conditions relate to their physical capacity and interpersonal experiences in the home [37]. Because private homes vary greatly and are not designed for healthcare provision, the influence of environmental resources on engagement may be inconsistent. Nevertheless, environmental safety remains relevant, as it may indirectly affect engagement by shaping physical strain, risk perceptions, and overall job satisfaction [38]. Therefore, introducing standardized home safety assessments and checklists for care workers and families is recommended to ensure consistency and support safer home-based care practices [39,40].

Although this study offers valuable insights, it also entails several limitations. The generalizability of the findings is constrained because the sample was geographically restricted, and the cross-sectional design further limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding causality. Furthermore, several key variables, including satisfaction with In-home mobility and safety supports, were assessed using single-item measures. Single-item measures may be limited in sufficiently capturing the multidimensionality of constructs and do not allow for the assessment of internal consistency, thereby potentially reducing measurement reliability. In addition, the reliance on secondary data analysis restricted the selection of variables to those available in the dataset, thereby reducing the ability to capture potentially relevant constructs and to control for unmeasured confounders, and such inherent limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Future research should therefore employ longitudinal designs or structural equation modeling to clarify causal pathways more effectively. Moreover, the application of multilevel analyses that incorporate organizational job resources such as supervisor support, peer collaboration, and organizational culture could provide a more comprehensive understanding. Such studies may meaningfully inform policies and practices aimed at strengthening work sustainability and improving service quality among home-visit care workers. Despite these limitations, this study makes a significant theoretical contribution by empirically applying the JD-R model to home-visit care workers, a distinct occupational group. The differentiation of factors such as emotional labor, physical environment, self-rated health, and relationship quality consistent with the theoretical structures of the JD-R model provides compelling evidence for the model’s practical relevance and explanatory capacity in complex care contexts.

Conclusions

This study investigated factors associated with work engagement among home-visit care workers using the JD-R model. These findings indicated that emotional labor and physically demanding work environments were linked to lower work engagement, whereas self-rated health and high-quality relationships with care recipients functioned as important resources related to higher engagement. These results support the applicability of the JD-R model in community-based care contexts and underscore the need to mitigate job demands and strengthen personal and relational resources.

To foster sustained engagement, care worker training should include components that develop emotional regulation and relationship-building skills. Home care agencies should provide safe and manageable work environments, and families should be informed of the scope and boundaries of care services. In addition, before assigning care workers to households, home care agency supervisors should make proactive efforts to foster positive relationships between users and care workers and to minimize potential conflicts, thereby promoting stable and sustainable caregiving arrangements. Collectively, these coordinated efforts can help develop stable, satisfying, and committed caregiving relationships in the home care sector. By identifying both risk and protective factors for work engagement, this study contributes evidence to inform workforce policies and practical interventions in long-term care. In particular, the findings highlight the significance of supporting care workers’ health and relational resources as central strategies to enhance quality of care and promote workforce retention in the growing home care sector.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of this study

Figure 2.

Flowchart of the participant selection process

References

• 1. Moody E, Ganann R, Martin-Misener R, Ploeg J, Macdonald M, Weeks LE, et al. Out-of-pocket expenses related to aging in place for frail older people: A scoping review. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20(2):537–605. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00413ArticlePubMed
• 2. Cesari M, Sumi Y, Han ZA, Perracini M, Jang H, Briggs A, et al. Implementing care for healthy ageing. BMJ Global Health. 2022;7(2):e007778. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007778ArticlePubMedPMC
• 3. World Health Organization. Integrated care for older people: guidelines on community-level interventions to manage declines in intrinsic capacity. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017 [cited 2025 Oct 4]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241515993
• 4. Lim-Soh J, Sung P, Quach HL, Malhotra R. Sharing in caring: Family caregiving task-sharing patterns for older adults in Singapore. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Science and Social Sciences. 2024;80(1):gbae186. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae186Article
• 5. Nakanishi M, Shimizu S, Murai T, Yamaoka A. “Ageing in place” policy in Japan: Association between the development of an integrated community care system and the number of nursing home placements under the public long-term care insurance program among municipal governments. Ageing International. 2015;40:248–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-014-9215-xArticle
• 6. Cha HB, Sun WD. Development process and future improvement issues of long‑term care insurance for the elderly. The Journal of Long Term Care. 2013;1(1):7–30.
• 7. Namkung EH. Long-term care workforce: The current working conditions and policy implications. Health and Welfare Policy Forum. 2024;2:54–70. https://doi.org/10.23062/2024.02.5Article
• 8. Kyoung SK, Jeong HJ, Lee HY. A study on educational priorities for long-term care givers job training. The Journal of Korean Long Term Care. 2023;11(1):143–169. https://doi.org/10.32928/TJLTC.11.1.6Article
• 9. Lee S, Oh GL. Working conditions affecting home care workers’ stress and turnover intention. Journal of Applied Gerontology : The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society. 2023;42(4):717–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648221148163ArticlePubMed
• 10. Lam J, Baxter J. “Friend-ish”: Home care workers, “social labor” and managing the boundaries of the carer relationship. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2023;42(4):581–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648221144026ArticlePubMed
• 11. Abdelhadi N, Drach‐Zahavy A. Promoting patient care: Work engagement as a mediator between ward service climate and patient‐centred care. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2012;68(6):1276–1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05834.xArticlePubMed
• 12. Kim H, Seo K. Impact of job engagement on the quality of nursing services: The effect of person-centered nursing in South Korean nurses. Healthcare. 2021;9(7):826. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9070826ArticlePubMedPMC
• 13. Scott G, Hogden A, Taylor R, Mauldon E. Exploring the impact of employee engagement and patient safety. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2022;34(3):mzac059. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzac059ArticlePubMedPMC
• 14. Moisoglou I, Katsiroumpa A, Katsapi A, Konstantakopoulou O, Galanis P. Poor nurses’ work environment increases quiet quitting and reduces work engagement: A Cross-Sectional study in Greece. Nursing Reports. 2025;15(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15010019ArticlePubMedPMC
• 15. Ikeda S, Eguchi H, Hiro H, Mafune K, Hino A, Koga K, et al. Work engagement mediates the relationship between job resources and work-to-family positive spillover (WFPS) for home-visit nursing staff. Environmental and Occupational Health Practice. 2022;4(1):2021-0012-OA. https://doi.org/10.1539/eohp.2021-0012-OAArticlePubMedPMC
• 16. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-Resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2017;22(3):273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056ArticlePubMed
• 17. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel A. Job demands-Resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2023;10:25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933Article
• 18. Chichin ER. Home care is where the heart is: The role of interpersonal relationships in paraprofessional home care. Home Health Care Services Quarterly. 1992;13(1-2):161–177. https://doi.org/10.1300/J027V13N01_08ArticlePubMed
• 19. Delp L, Wallace SP, Geiger-Brown J, Muntaner C. Job stress and job satisfaction: Home care workers in a consumer-directed model of care. Health Services Research. 2010;45(4):922–940. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01112.xArticlePubMedPMC
• 20. Möckli N, Denhaerynck K, De Geest S, Leppla L, Beckmann S, Hediger H, et al. The home care work environment’s relationships with work engagement and burnout: A cross‐sectional multi‐centre study in Switzerland. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2020;28(6):1989–2003. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13010ArticlePubMed
• 21. Lee JC, Ro HL, Kang JS. Affects of job stress on job involvement of caregiver. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science. 2012;51(4):229–245.
• 22. Lee YG. Path analyses between the work environment, job enthusiasm, and job satisfaction of nursing care workers: Focusing on the moderating effect of the institution types of long-term care homes. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society. 2024;25(5):200–214. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2024.25.5.200Article
• 23. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001;86(3):499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499ArticlePubMed
• 24. Kang E. The home and service environments of long-term care recipients in receipt of in-home care. Research Report. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2020. December. Report No.: 2020-23..
• 25. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006;66(4):701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471Article
• 26. Morris JA, Feldman DC. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. The Academy of Management Review. 1996;21(4):986–1010. https://doi.org/10.2307/259161Article
• 27. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, He J, Muntner P. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: A meta-analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006;21:267–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00291.xArticlePubMedPMC
• 28. Lee SB, Kwon OD. Factors affecting care worker’s burden of patients with dementia. Journal of the Korean Neurological Association. 2015;33(3):162–167. https://doi.org/10.17340/JKNA.2015.3.4Article
• 29. Midje HH, Nyborg VN, Nordsteien A, Øvergård KI, Brembo EA, Torp S. Antecedents and outcomes of work engagement among nursing staff in long-term care facilities:A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2024;80(1):42–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15804ArticlePubMed
• 30. Freedman VA, Patterson SE, Cornman JC, Wolff JL. A day in the life of caregivers to older adults with and without dementia: Comparisons of care time and emotional health. Alzheimer's & dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2022;18(9):1650–1661. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12550Article
• 31. Moon YM, Shin SY. Effects of emotional labor on burnout in long-term care hospital care workers. Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing. 2018;20(2):67–75. https://doi.org/10.17079/jkgn.2018.20.2.67Article
• 32. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Euwema MC. Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2005;10(2):170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170ArticlePubMed
• 33. Jang HY, Song EO, Suh YJ. The effects of emotional labor and job satisfaction on organizational commitment in staffs by the size of facility. Research in Community and Public Health Nursing. 2020;1–12. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2020.31.1.1Article
• 34. Iecovich E. Quality of relationships between care recipients and their primary caregivers and its effect on caregivers' burden and satisfaction in Israel. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2011;54(6):570–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.579691ArticlePubMed
• 35. Oh YR, Chun HJ. The analysis of factors influencing job satisfaction of caregivers: Focusing on unfair experiences. Journal of Social Science. 2022;33:87–104. https://doi.org/10.16881/jss.2022.01.33.1.87Article
• 36. Grasmo SG, Liaset IF, Redzovic SE. Home care workers’ experiences of work conditions related to their occupational health: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. 2021;21(1):962. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06941-zArticlePubMedPMC
• 37. Yeon LS. The influence of recognition of the working environment on the aged nursing facility’s care workers in organizational commitment: Focusing on the mediative effects of growth needs. Journal of Social Science. 2019;30(3):289–310. https://doi.org/10.16881/jss.2019.07.30.3.289Article
• 38. Kim SH, Son BC. Analysis of musculoskeletal disorders risk in elderly female caregivers activities of transfer task: A focused on the Chungnam region. Journal of Rehabilitation Welfare Engineering & Assistive Technology. 2023;17(4):257–266. https://doi.org/10.21288/resko.2023.17.4.257Article
• 39. Lang A. There's no place like home: Research, practice and policy perspectives regarding safety in homecare. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2010;22(2):75–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzq007ArticlePubMed
• 40. Nix E, Altom K. Safety concerns associated with home care nursing. Home Healthcare Now. 2023;41(3):135–139. https://doi.org/10.1097/NHH.0000000000001161ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by