Do type A personality and neuroticism moderate the relationships of occupational stressors, job satisfaction and burnout among Chinese older nurses? A cross-sectional survey

Table 4 The point estimates and 95% CIs for multi-group analysis of the mediation model

Groups	Indirect effects Estimate (95% CI)	Direct effects Estimate (95% CI)	Total effects Estimate (95% CI)	Mediation proportion
High type A personality group	.33 (.21, .49) ^**	.17(-.01, .32)	.50 (.34, .64) ^**	66.0%
Low type A personality group	.16 (.06, .27) ^**	.32(.15, .47) ^**	.48 (.32, .61) ^**	33.3%
High neuroticism group	.16 (.04, .27) ^*	.30 (.17, .44) ^**	.47 (.29, .61) ^**	34.0%
Low neuroticism group	.28 (.17, .42) ^**	.25 (.08, .40) ^**	.52 (.37, .65) ^**	53.9%

Note: All the above results were from unrestricted model. Total effects represented the total effects of occupational stress on burnout, which included direct effects and indirect effects. Direct effects represented the direct effects of occupational stress on burnout. Indirect effects represented the mediating effects of job satisfaction on the relationships between occupational stress and burnout. Mediation proportion = Indirect effects/ Total effects
CI Confidence interval
^* P ≤ 0.05, ^**P ≤ 0.01

ISSN: 1472-6955