Abstract
AIM: To identify and integrate the best evidence on nurses' perceptions of organisational attractiveness and related factors in health care. DESIGN: A mixed methods systematic review. METHODS: The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute Mixed Methods Systematic Review methodology and a convergent segregated approach which involved separate qualitative and quantitative syntheses followed by integration in a narrative form. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in August 2023 with no time or geographical limits in CINAHL, PubMed, Finnish database Medic, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, MedNar and EBSCO databases. Studies published in English, Finnish and Swedish were included. RESULTS: Eleven studies (three qualitative, eight quantitative) were identified and studied further. The results indicated that key themes of organisational attractiveness in health care were the dimensions of patient and professional work well-being, opportunities for professional growth and the responsibilities of the organisation. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and work well-being for nurses have a considerable effect on organisational attractiveness. Organisations play a notable role in enabling nurses' professional growth. Responsibilities of the organisation extend to higher political decision-making as well as to managers of the healthcare organisations. Organisational attractiveness covers the entire organisation, its patients, professionals and managers. Enhancing multi-professional cooperation, implementing effective management practices and branding of the organisation can contribute to increased organisational attractiveness. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: Organisations should consider nurses' wishes, develop strategies to improve competencies, leverage social media to develop their brand, extend the orientation to all levels of the organisation and increase interdepartmental and external collaboration. Future research on organisational attractiveness is necessary in health care and the views of healthcare professionals on a wider scale. REPORTING METHOD: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used when reporting the results. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no patient or public contribution. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database of the National Institute of Health Research (CRD42023451680).