How Ergonomics Influences Nurse Procrastination Through Job Satisfaction: Analysis of Hospitals in Sulaimania

How Ergonomics Influences Nurse Procrastination Through Job Satisfaction: Analysis of Hospitals in Sulaimania | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article How Ergonomics Influences Nurse Procrastination Through Job Satisfaction: Analysis of Hospitals in Sulaimania Dalia Khalid Faeq This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7519724/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background – This study, grounded in Ergonomics Theory, Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, and Self-Regulation Theory, aims to build and propose a research model that investigates the ergonomics in hospitals in the Sulaimania city, Kurdistan region of Iraq. This empirical study aims to examine: (a) the effect of ergonomics on nurses’ job satisfaction and procrastination; (b) the effect of nurses’ job satisfaction on procrastination in the workplace; and (c) the mediating role of job satisfaction in these connections. Methods – A quantitative, cross-sectional, correlational research design was applied, utilizing a stratified random sample of 187 registered nurses from public, private hospitals. Data were gathered through a structured survey including validated scales for ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination. Reliability and validity were confirmed through Cronbach’s Alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). Mediation analysis was conducted using Hayes PROCESS Model 4 with bootstrapping to test indirect effects. Results – The findings revealed that ergonomics had a significant positive influence on job satisfaction and that job satisfaction significantly reduced workplace procrastination. Ergonomics also had a significant total negative effect on procrastination. Mediation analysis confirmed a significant indirect effect of ergonomics on procrastination through job satisfaction, indicating partial mediation. All measurement constructs showed high reliability and attained convergent validity. Conclusion – The findings emphasize that enhancing ergonomic circumstances in nursing environments can improve job satisfaction and reduce procrastination, both directly and indirectly. The analysis highlights the significance of incorporating ergonomic interventions into hospital management policies to encourage nurse productivity, job satisfaction, and timely task completion. Originality/value – Little is known about the consequences of ergonomics in the health care industry and the antecedent of procrastination at work place. The literature is also devoid of evidence concerning affective variables as the potential mediators relating ergonomics to procrastination. The study wants to fill in these gaps. ergonomics job satisfaction procrastination hospitals nurses Kurdistan Region of Iraq Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Nurses in the healthcare sector experience various job characteristics, including repetitive movements, prolonged postures, physical exertion, task monotony, mechanical pressure on specific body areas, static work effects, vibration, cold exposure, and organizational psychosocial factors [1,2]. A well-designed ergonomic setup helps mitigate several work-related musculoskeletal problems, including carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, muscular strains, and lower back injuries [3]. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indicates that musculoskeletal disorders associated with the job account for almost 33% of all work-related injuries. Many organizations endeavor to implement UpToDate tactics to cultivate a healthy work environment, including ergonomic principles that tailor work to the individual. Ergonomics is described as “the theoretical and fundamental understanding of human behavior and performance in purposeful interacting socio-technical systems” [4]. The role of an ergonomist is to design items, services, and environments to enhance individual well-being and optimize overall system performance [5]. In these conditions, such, nurses are anticipated to exhibit satisfaction with their organization [6]. Job satisfaction refers to "the pleasurable emotional state arising from the evaluation of one’s job as fulfilling or aiding the attainment of one’s job values" [7]. Satisfied nurses may exhibit condensed procrastination, which is characterized as an illogical inclination to postpone task execution or decision-making, despite awareness of the negative consequences of such delays. The prevalence of procrastination in the general population is from 15% to 20% [8]. Exhibiting elevated degrees of procrastination consumes a considerable portion of work hours on non-job-related activities. Consequently, to complete everyday duties, individuals may extend their working hours (leading to diminished focus and increased fatigue) or hasten their tasks (perhaps resulting in errors) [9]. Procrastination in the healthcare industry jeopardizes not only the career advancement of nurses but also poses risks to patients' health and lives [10,11]. Procrastination in the workplace is classified into two distinct behavioral patterns. Soldiering and cyberslacking [8]. Soldiering is the act of evading job responsibilities for over one hour daily without the intention of causing detriment or transferring obligations to others [9]. Cyberslacking is a common phenomenon that encompasses activities such as online shopping, browsing social media, gaming, or instant messaging during work hours instead of performing job-related duties [12]. Against this backdrop, this study proposes and test a conceptual model that investigates the mediating model of job satisfaction in the relationship between ergonomics and procrastination at the work. Specially, this study examines: (a) the effects of ergonomics on nurses’ job satisfaction and procrastination; (b) the influence of nurses’ job satisfaction on procrastination; (c) job satisfaction as a mediator of the effect of ergonomics on procrastination. The current study contributes to the literature in the following ways:First, although the association between ergonomics and employees’ behavior has been explored in different industries [13], still there is a lack regarding this relationship specifically within the context of the health care industry among nurses [14], particularly when considering the mediating role of job satisfaction [15]. Second, a review of the existing literature reveals that the precursors of workplace procrastination have been predominantly overlooked. This is evident from recent limited investigations. [16] contend that procrastination is a widespread phenomenon in contemporary society, necessitating further investigation by scholars into its nature and prevention methods. [17] asserts that the factors contributing to workplace procrastination require investigation. [8] assert that empirical research must extend beyond previous studies that concentrate on the ramifications of procrastination. Third, data are gathered from nurses in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, a developing country in the Middle East, to evaluate the aforementioned linkages. This is significant as contemporary human resource management approaches among Kurdish nurses in hospitals are not prevalent [18]. Consequently, the findings of this study will provide significant insights into ergonomic management, improvement of job satisfaction, and reduction of procrastination among nurses in the workplace. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development This research emphasizes on principles from Ergonomics Theory, Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, and Self-Regulation Theory to clarify the relations among ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination in nursing contexts. Ergonomics and Job Satisfaction Ergonomics theory suggests that the strategy of work environments—encompassing workstation arrangement, equipment approachability, lighting, noise mechanism, and reduction of physical straining, which significantly influence employee well-being and outcome [19,10,14]. Previous study has constantly revealed that ergonomic conditions in the workplace, for instance suitable workplace scheme, appropriate equipment placement, and ideal lighting which play a significant role in improving staff well-being and job outcome. According to Ergonomics Theory, a workstation considered to fit the employee's physical and cognitive requirements decreases musculoskeletal strain, psychological fatigue, and workflow disorganizations. In the nursing framework, where responsibilities frequently include long hours, patient treatment, and accuracy work, well-structured ergonomics straight contributes to well-being, safety, and productivity. This, in turn, promotes better job satisfaction as nurses feel physically reinforced and less burdened by preventable embarrassment or injury possibilities. The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model [20] additional clarifies this association by theorizing ergonomics as a job resource [21] that controls the negative consequences of high job demands. In healthcare, job difficulties for instance demonstrative strain, time difficulty, and physical effort are predictable. Though, at what time ergonomic resources (e.g., adaptable equipment, protected patient-handling strategies, concentrated noise levels) are in place, they buffer the influence of these difficulties, improving commitment and satisfaction. Insufficient ergonomics, equally, can increase physical strain, contributing to disappointment and exhaustion. From the viewpoint of Self-Regulation Theory [22], ergonomically understanding environments support nurses in sustaining their physical and conceptual energy, empowering superior rule of effort, consideration, and demonstrative answers during challenging shifts. Once nurses work in environments that decrease unnecessary strain, they conserve self-regulatory resources, leading to a more positive emotional state and higher satisfaction with their employment. In contrast, inadequately intended workspaces drain self-regulatory capability, decreasing satisfaction and rising the probability of maladaptive coping behaviors such as procrastination. In sum, by positioning workplace strategy with Ergonomics Theory, leveraging ergonomics as a job resource within the JD-R framework, and identifying its role in preservative self-regulatory capability, it becomes obvious why enhanced ergonomic conditions are powerfully related to greater job satisfaction among nurses. These theoretical viewpoints together clarify how physical work environment developments can directly improve nurses’ well-being, inspiration, and whole satisfaction. According to the JD-R model, ergonomically enhanced atmospheres act as job resources that can reduce physical stresses and improve well-being, thereby increasing job satisfaction. It seems there are few studies that provide evidence for the link between ergonomics and job satisfaction. For instance, [17] found a positive connection between ergonomics and work satisfaction. In a study of health care workers in Turkey, [23] showed that ergonomics influenced job satisfaction. [24] proved that ergonomic factors impact job satisfaction during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among university workers. Empirical researches support this connection, displaying that enhanced ergonomics positively relates with job satisfaction among healthcare labors [25, 21, 26]. Based on this reasoning: H1: Ergonomics has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction among nurses. Job Satisfaction and Workplace Procrastination Self-Regulation Theory proposes that individuals with higher satisfaction and engagement are more probable to adjust their work behaviors successfully and less likely to delay responsibilities [27, 28, 29]. In nursing, where timely task completion is critical, higher job satisfaction can rise inspiration and obligation, decreasing inclinations toward procrastination. In healthcare situations, job satisfaction reproduces the degree to which nurses feel appreciated, supported, and satisfied in their roles. Higher job satisfaction is related with superior intrinsic motivation, greater obligation to organizational objectives, and a greater sense of accountability toward patient care. According to the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model [20], job satisfaction develops when the stability between job demands and resources is satisfactory. Once nurses have satisfactory resources, for instance helpful management, adequate staffing, and active teamwork, they are better prepared to meet work requirements without unnecessary strain [30]. This decreases the possibility of disconnection and counterproductive behaviors, like workplace procrastination. Equally, dissatisfaction regularly reproduces unmet requirements and resource insufficiencies, leading staffs to delay tasks as a coping instrument to avoid stress or prevention [31]. From the lens system of Self-Regulation Theory [32], job satisfaction positively effects a nurse’s capability to control attention, enthusiasm, and task perseverance. Satisfied nurses incline to experience more progressive affect, which reloads self-control resources and allows continued emphasis on time-sensitive tasks. Dissatisfied staffs, though, frequently experience emotional tiredness, which reduces self-regulatory capability, making them more disposed to to procrastination as an avoidance approach. For example, a dissatisfied nurse might delay managerial charting or follow-up demands, not because of workload only, but due to emotional disconnection from the job [33]. Empirical indication similarly supports this connection, presentation that staffs with greater satisfaction levels involve less in procrastination because they observe their tasks as expressive and associated with personal and specialized values [34]. In nursing, this arrangement is particularly serious, as delays in patient care responsibilities can have thoughtful results. Consequently, when satisfaction is high, nurses are more probable to take proprietorship of accountabilities punctually, decreasing procrastination behaviors [32]. In summary, the negative association between job satisfaction and workplace procrastination in the nursing setting can be clarified by the JD-R Model’s emphasis on resource obtainability and by Self-Regulation Theory’s opinion of satisfaction as a replenisher of self-control resources. Together, these theories show that refining satisfaction is an applied pathway to decreasing procrastination and enhancing care quality [35]. A scrutiny of the relevant literature reveals that empirical evidence about the association of job satisfaction with procrastination at work is sparse. For example, [20] demonstrated that job satisfaction exerted a negative influence on procrastination. [30] reported a negative association between job satisfaction and job procrastination among employees in China. [32] reported a negative association between job satisfaction and procrastination. Earlier studies in healthcare have found that satisfied staffs determine lower levels of task avoidance and delay [36, 37, 38]. Consequently: H2: Job satisfaction has a significant negative effect on workplace procrastination among nurses. Ergonomics and Workplace Procrastination Ergonomic deficiencies, for instance as inadequately proposed workplaces or inaccessible tools, can lead to physical discomfort and system disorganizations, which might indirectly inspire procrastination through avoidance behaviors [39, 40, 41]. Equally, well-designed ergonomic environments can enable task completion by decreasing exhaustion and discomfort, thus directly decreasing procrastination. In nursing, ergonomic scheme states to the optimization of workplaces, equipment, and workflow to decrease physical strain, improve comfort, and support well-organized task performance. According to Ergonomics Theory Dul & Weerdmeester, a well-made work atmosphere brings into line with the employee's physical and cognitive competences, reducing redundant energy and discomfort. Insufficient ergonomics, such as inadequately situated equipment, insufficient lighting, or substantial physical handling requirements, might lead to exhaustion, embarrassment, and frustration [33]. These circumstances frequently contribute to task avoidance, as nurses might delay physically demanding or uncooperative events, rising workplace procrastination. Equally, supportive ergonomic design reduces needless obstacles, making it easier for nurses to begin and finish tasks rapidly [17]. The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model settings ergonomics as a job resource that responds the strain produced by high job demands. In high-pressure healthcare situations, where nurses face time-sensitive tasks and expressive difficulties, poor ergonomics enhances to the physical and cognitive load, demanding energy and inspiring avoidance behaviors. Better-quality ergonomics decreases these demands, allowing nurses to sustain emphasis and commitment, thus decreasing procrastination tendencies. For instance, easy admission to well-ordered medical supplies can decrease the time and determination needed for task commencement, discouraging delay [42]. From the viewpoint of Self-Regulation Theory, physical discomfort and exhaustion from poor ergonomics reduce self-control resources, turning it into more difficult to resist procrastination. When nurses function in an ergonomically helpful atmosphere, they conserve physical and cognitive energy, which could then be assigned toward timely task implementation. This protection of self-regulatory capability decreases the probability of engaging in procrastination as a managing instrument [43]. Empirical researches support this relation, presentation that atmospheres designed with ergonomic principles decrease physical strain, increase workflow competence, and improve work commitment, which together reduce the frequency of procrastination behaviors [33]. In nursing, where delayed act could influence patient consequences, enlightening ergonomics is not only a matter of ease but a serious approach to decrease procrastination and increase care delivery. In empirical terms, [12] found that work environments that contain insufficient resources and demands may increase boredom, which might eventually lead employees to engage in irrelevant or even harmful behaviors like procrastination. Barabanshchikova et al. (2018)provided evidence among employees of a modern Russian industrial enterprise that organizational factors influence procrastination. Research in occupational backgrounds supports the concept that ergonomic improvements decrease delays in task execution [19,10,4].Therefore: H3: Ergonomics has a significant negative total effect on workplace procrastination. Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction The JD-R model also suggests that job resources, for instance ergonomic circumstances, effect performance consequences through motivational routes like job satisfaction. Ergonomic developments can rise job satisfaction, which in turn decreases procrastination, proposing a mediating effect. The mediating role of job satisfaction between ergonomics and workplace procrastination could be clarified by the merged perceptions of Ergonomics Theory, the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, and Self-Regulation Theory. According to Ergonomics Theory Dul & Weerdmeester, a work atmosphere planned to meet the physical and mental needs of staffs decreases strain, increases comfort, and enables workflow competence. In the nursing background, ergonomically enhanced conditions, such as adaptable patient beds, helpful seating, prearranged supply positions, and noise reduction procedures, generate a more optimistic work experience [44]. This physical ease translates into greater job satisfaction, as nurses feel reinforced and appreciated by their hospitals through the establishment of appropriate working conditions. The JD-R Model additional explains this mediation by inclosing ergonomics as a job resource that counterbalances the extreme physical and emotional difficulties of nursing. Satisfactory ergonomic resources decrease job stressors and improve arrangement, leading to superior job satisfaction. In turn, greater satisfaction raises stronger intrinsic motivation and task obligation, which decreases the possibility of procrastination. Therefore, ergonomics influences procrastination not only straight but similarly indirectly, through its optimistic effect on satisfaction [45]. From the lens of Self-Regulation Theory, job satisfaction plays a vital role in preserving and replenishing self-control resources. Nurses who work in helpful ergonomic circumstances experience less physical uneasiness and psychological fatigue, which improves satisfaction and psychological well-being [46]. This positive influence state reinforces their capability to start and complete responsibilities without unnecessary delay [47]. Equally, when ergonomics is poor, reduced satisfaction could lead to emotional tiredness, reducing self-regulatory competence and raising procrastination as an evasion behavior. Empirical indication supports this mediation pathway: researchers have found that enhanced ergonomics leads to greater job satisfaction, which afterward decreases counterproductive work behaviors such as procrastination [48]. In the high-stakes nursing atmosphere, where delays could compromise patient protection, this mediating association underlines the significance of addressing both physical workstation strategy and employee satisfaction as interconnected levers for enhancing production and care quality [49]. In practical terms there are several studies that treated job satisfaction as a mediator mechanism. [32] found that job satisfaction mediates the relation between organizational justice and procrastination behavior among educational staff in Indonesia. [32], revealed that job satisfaction mediates the relationships between conflicts and perceived job performance. [20] proved that job satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and life satisfaction among nurses in Chinese hospitals. [42] found that interprofessional teamwork was directly associated with nurses' intentions to leave. The influence of teamwork on intention to leave among nurses in Oman was indirectly mediated by job satisfaction. Earlier mediation researches in organizational behavior have validated that job satisfaction can aid as an indirect direction between workplace circumstances and performance-related behaviors [29, 36, 37]. Consequently: H4: Job satisfaction significantly mediates the relationship between ergonomics and workplace procrastination. The diagram (figure 1) demonstrates the theoretical framework connecting ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination, with job satisfaction serving as a mediating variable. It suggests four hypotheses (H1–H4). H1 suggests that ergonomics has a significant positive influence on job satisfaction, signifying that a well-designed work atmosphere improves staffs’ satisfaction levels. H2 suggests that job satisfaction negatively effects workplace procrastination, meaning that satisfied staffs are less expected to delay tasks. H3 proposes a direct negative association between ergonomics and workplace procrastination, suggesting that an effective ergonomic condition could directly decrease procrastination. H4 shows that job satisfaction mediates the association between ergonomics and workplace procrastination, emphasizing an indirect pathway where ergonomics increases job satisfaction, which in turn decreases procrastination. This conceptual framework highlights both direct and indirect outcomes, underlining the significance of workplace strategy in development employee well-being and productivity. Research Methodology Research Design This research applied a quantitative, cross-sectional, correlational research design to study the direct and indirect effects of ergonomics on nurses’ workplace procrastination, with job satisfaction conceptualized as a mediating variable. The selection of a quantitative method is supported in the essential to measure and statistically validate the strength and direction of relations among variables, whereas the cross-sectional environment of the research approved for taking opinions and behaviors at a certain point in time. The correlational design allowed study of existing patterns without influencing the research background, appropriate for a healthcare framework. Study Population and Sampling Procedure The target population included registered nurses working in public, private hospitals in Sulaimania, Iraq. Nurses were designated because they operate in ergonomically sensitive atmospheres that directly affect task outcome and well-being. To confirm demonstration across different organizational and clinical settings, the research employed a stratified random sampling method. The strata were based on key factors such as hospital type, department/unit (e.g., ICU, emergency), and shift type (e.g., day, night, rotating). A total of 187 nurses were recruited. This sample size is statistically satisfactory for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Hayes PROCESS mediation analysis, ensuring generalizability of the results within similar clinical settings. Instrumentation Data were gathered through a structured, self-administered survey that comprised of four principal units: Section 1: Demographic Information This unit collected background information for instance age, gender, marital status, educational qualification, years of experience, department/unit, kind of hospital, and shift category. These variables assisted to contextualize the nurses and allowed for subgroup assessments. Section 2: Ergonomics This unit measured nurses’ insights of ergonomic conditions in their work atmosphere. Five items were modified from [50] and [51], concentrating on workstation comfort, approachability of equipment, noise and lighting, and general physical strain. This section of the questionnaire was Modified from [52], moreover ,answers were captured utilizing a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Sample item: “My nursing workstation is designed to support proper posture and comfort.” Reliability : Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.84 Section 3: Job Satisfaction This unit items’ were modified from [53]. It included five declarations assessing intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors for instance recognition, fulfillment, and organizational support. Sample item: “I find my nursing work meaningful and fulfilling.” Reliability : Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87 Section 4: Workplace Procrastination Items in this division were modified from [54]. and adapted for the hospital background. Five statements evaluated task avoidance, distraction, and delay in completing nursing responsibilities. Sample item: “I sometimes delay completing patient care tasks even when I have time to do them.” Reliability : Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.82 Validity and Reliability Testing To confirm construct validity, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. The consequences designated that: Table 1 Validity and Reliability Testing Construct Factor Loadings Range AVE CR Convergent Validity Ergonomics 0.68 – 0.84 0.59 0.85 Achieved Job Satisfaction 0.71 – 0.88 0.64 0.89 Achieved Workplace Procrastination 0.66 – 0.81 0.57 0.83 Achieved The measurement model (table 1) findings show that all three constructs; Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination, exhibited satisfactory convergent validity. For Ergonomics, factor loadings ranged from 0.68 to 0.84, with an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.59 and a Composite Reliability (CR) of 0.85, above the suggested levels of 0.50 for AVE and 0.70 for CR. Job Satisfaction presented factor loadings between 0.71 and 0.88, an AVE of 0.64, and a CR of 0.89, similarly meeting the standards for convergent validity. Correspondingly, Workplace Procrastination had factor loadings ranging from 0.66 to 0.81, an AVE of 0.57, and a CR of 0.83, demonstrating satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity. These findings verify that the dimension items for each construct reliably signify their essential dormant variables. These findings validate that all constructs accomplished acceptable levels for convergent validity and internal consistency reliability. Data Collection Procedure Data gathering took place over a three-week period. Earlier to allocation, ethical permission was achieved from the hospital authorities. Nurses were voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was attained from all nurses. The survey was administered both in paper format and online via a secure platform to accommodate various hospital systems and obtainability. Nurses accomplished the evaluation during scheduled break times or after their shifts to avoid interference with patient care. Data were firmly stored and only accessible to the research team. Data Analysis Techniques Data were examined employing SPSS (Version 28) and the Hayes PROCESS Macro (Model 4) for mediation analysis. The following steps were taken: Descriptive Statistics: applied to summarize demographic data. Reliability Analysis: Cronbach’s Alpha evaluated internal consistency for each measure. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): To evaluate construct validity utilizing factor loadings, AVE, and CR. Pearson Correlation: To investigate the strength and direction of relations among factors. Multiple Regression Analysis: To exam direct effects (H1–H3). Mediation Analysis: Model 4 of Hayes PROCESS Macro was affected to measure indirect effects (H4). Bootstrapping was utilized to construct bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. A mediation influence was measured important if the confidence interval for the indirect effect did not include zero. Ethical Considerations This study followed ethical procedures in line with the Declaration of Helsinki. The following values were perceived: Informed Consent: All nurses expected a clarification of the research purpose and agreed voluntarily. Confidentiality: No personal identifiers were collected; data were anonymized. Right to Withdraw: nurses were informed that they could withdraw at any time without consequences. Analysis and Results This section demonstrates the statistical results of the research, beginning with a descriptive analysis of nurses’ demographic features to create the framework of the research sample. Reliability analysis is next applied to measure the internal consistency of the measurement instruments, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess convergent validity. Lastly, mediation analysis applying Hayes PROCESS Model 4 is executed to test the hypothesized relationships between ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination. Together, these statistical analyses demonstrate a comprehensive summary of the dataset and the strength of the proposed model. Table 2 Descriptive Analysis Variable Categories Frequency Percentage Age Under 25 52 28 25–34 65 35 35–44 41 22 45–54 19 10 55+ 10 5 Gender Female 146 78 Male 41 22 Marital Status Single 64 34 Married 108 58 Divorced/Widowed 15 8 Highest Nursing Qualification Diploma 28 15 Bachelor’s 127 68 Master’s 22 17 Years of Experience Less than 1 yr 15 8 1–5 yrs 79 42 6–10 yrs 56 30 10+ yrs 37 20 Current Department Emergency 34 18 ICU 45 24 Pediatrics 37 20 Surgical 30 16 Medical 28 15 Other 13 7 Hospital Type Public 97 52 Private 71 38 Teaching 19 10 Shift Type Day 84 45 Night 56 30 Rotating 47 25 The demographic (table 2) outline of the nurses reveals key features that are significant for considerate the research background and interpreting its results. In terms of age distribution, the largest proportion of nurses falls within the 25–34 age group (35%), followed by those under 25 (28%), representing a moderately young nursing workforce that may be more flexible to change and open to new practices. Gender distribution is remarkably skewed, with females including 78% of the sample, which bring into line with worldwide trends in the nursing profession and reproduces the gendered nature of healthcare work. Marital status displays that 58% of nurses are married, which could affect work–life balance thoughts, while 34% are single and 8% divorced or widowed. Concerning educational contextual, a majority (68%) hold a Bachelor’s degree, followed by 17% with a Master’s degree, demonstrating a commonly well-qualified workforce, with only 15% holding a diploma. Years of experience differ, with the largest group (42%) having 1–5 years, suggesting a workforce with reasonable experience and possible for career growth. Departmental distribution displays a balanced distribution across ICU (24%), Pediatrics (20%), and Emergency (18%), reflecting diverse clinical exposure. Hospital kind data exposes that 52% of nurses work in public hospitals, 38% in private, and 10% in teaching hospitals, representing a combination of institutional backgrounds. Shift type distribution underlines that 45% work day shifts, 30%-night shifts, and 25% rotating shifts, which is important for understanding workload designs, fatigue, and possible influences on job satisfaction and performance. These demographic designs provide a comprehensive background for interpretation the research variables and validate the relevance of results across different nursing subcategories. Table 3 Reliability Analysis Construct Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Ergonomics 5 0.84 High Job Satisfaction 5 0.87 High Workplace procrastination 5 0.82 High The reliability test (table 3) displays that all three constructs; Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination—showed high internal consistency, as showed by their Cronbach’s Alpha values exceeding the extensively recognized level of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Ergonomics, measured through five items, accomplished a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.84, representing that the items are highly connected and consistently measure the construct. Job Satisfaction, similarly evaluated with five items, showed an even higher alpha value of 0.87, proposing outstanding reliability and least measurement error. Workplace Procrastination, with five items, yielded an alpha of 0.82, validating robust internal consistency. These findings support the reliability of the measurement scales, confirming that the constructs are measured precisely and consistently across respondents, which strengthens the validity and credibility of subsequent statistical analyses. Table 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results for Convergent Validity Construct Factor Loadings Range Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Composite Reliability (CR) Convergent Validity Ergonomics 0.68 - 0.84 0.59 0.85 Achieved Job Satisfaction 0.71 - 0.88 0.64 0.89 Achieved Workplace procrastination 0.66 - 0.81 0.57 0.83 Achieved The convergent validity outcomes (table 4) verify that all three constructs; Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination are well-demonstrated by their particular measurement items. For Ergonomics, the factor loadings ranged from 0.68 to 0.84, with an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.59 and a Composite Reliability (CR) of 0.85, both outstanding the suggested levels of AVE ≥ 0.50 and CR ≥ 0.70, thus creating convergent validity. Job Satisfaction verified factor loadings between 0.71 and 0.88, an AVE of 0.64, and a CR of 0.89, representing that the construct clarifies a considerable portion of the difference in its items and holds robust internal consistency. Workplace Procrastination recorded factor loadings from 0.66 to 0.81, with an AVE of 0.57 and a CR of 0.83, likewise meeting the essential benchmarks. These outcomes validate that each construct's measurement items are both reliable and theoretically aligned with their fundamental latent variables, confirming the strength of the measurement model. Table 5 Mediation Analysis Results Using Hayes PROCESS Model 4 Effect Path Coefficient (β) SE t-value / z-value p-value 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper Significance Ergonomics → Job Satisfaction (a path) 0.63 0.07 9.0 0.0 0.49 0.77 Significant Job Satisfaction → Procrastination (b path) 0.55 0.06 9.17 0.0 0.67 0.43 Significant Ergonomics → Procrastination (c path, total effect) 0.48 0.08 6.0 0.0 0.64 0.32 Significant Indirect Effect (a*b) 0.35 0.06 5.83 0.0 0.48 0.22 Significant The path analysis outcomes (table 5) designate that all hypothesized relations are statistically significant and meaningful. The direct influence of Ergonomics on Job Satisfaction (a path) is strong and positive (β = 0.63, p < 0.001), with a high t-value (9.0) and a 95% confidence interval (0.49–0.77), proposing that improved ergonomic circumstances considerably improve job satisfaction among nurses. Job Satisfaction, in turn, has a significant negative relationship with Workplace Procrastination (b path), with β = 0.55, p < 0.001, t = 9.17, and a confidence interval of 0.43–0.67, representing that better satisfaction is related to lower procrastination behaviors. The total effect of Ergonomics on Procrastination (c path) is similarly significant (β = 0.48, p < 0.001), demonstrating that ergonomics directly decreases procrastination though likewise affecting it indirectly through job satisfaction. The indirect effect (a*b) is β = 0.35, p < 0.001, with a confidence interval of 0.22–0.48, validating that job satisfaction partially mediates the association between ergonomics and procrastination. These results validate the projected mediation model, underlining that enhanced ergonomics not only directly decrease procrastination nonetheless correspondingly foster job satisfaction, which in turn further minimizes procrastination tendencies. The diagram (figure 2) demonstrates the mediation model studying the associations between Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination. The direct path from Ergonomics to Workplace Procrastination (β = 0.48) displays that better ergonomic circumstances are related with reduced procrastination. Furthermore, Ergonomics has a strong positive influence on Job Satisfaction (β = 0.63), representing that enhanced workplace ergonomics significantly improve nurse satisfaction. In turn, Job Satisfaction negatively influences Workplace Procrastination (β = 0.55), meaning that more satisfied nurses tend to procrastinate less. The mediation effect (β = 0.35) shows that part of the influence of Ergonomics on Workplace Procrastination happens indirectly through Job Satisfaction. This means that ergonomic enhancements not only decrease procrastination directly but similarly increase job satisfaction, which additional decreases procrastination levels. Generally, the model supports a partial mediation, displaying that both direct and indirect pathways are significant, emphasizing the dual role of ergonomics in influencing employee behavior and productivity. Discussion The results of this research verify all four projected hypotheses, representing that ergonomics has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction, job satisfaction has a significant negative effect on workplace procrastination, and ergonomics has both direct and indirect effects on reducing procrastination through the mediating role of job satisfaction. The positive relationship between ergonomics and job satisfaction (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) aligns with previous study highlighting the significance of ergonomic workplace design in improving nurse well-being and outcome. For instance, [38] found that ergonomic interventions in healthcare settings significantly enhanced both comfort and job satisfaction among nurses, advising that well-made workplaces, satisfactory lighting, and accessible tools reduce physical strain and increase work efficiency. Correspondingly, [39] claimed that ergonomically enhanced atmospheres contribute to better psychological well-being, which in turn improves satisfaction levels. The constancy between the results and these previous researches strengthens the argument that investment in ergonomic developments yields tangible benefits in nurse morale and inspiration. The negative association between job satisfaction and workplace procrastination (β = 0.55, p < 0.001) similarly supports current literature. [40] and [41] both emphasized that greater job satisfaction decreases the probability of delaying work-related tasks, as satisfied nurses show higher commitment and a greater sense of responsibility toward their roles. In nursing backgrounds, where procrastination can have thoughtful consequences for patient care, these results underline the serious role of satisfaction in encouraging timely and efficient task completion. The total effect of ergonomics on workplace procrastination (β = 0.48, p < 0.001) and the significant indirect effect through job satisfaction (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) designate partial mediation, meaning that whereas ergonomics directly decreases procrastination, a substantial part of its effect functions through improving satisfaction. This is aligned with the work of [19], who distinguished that ergonomic interventions not only increase physical working conditions but also shape nurses’ feelings toward their jobs, indirectly affecting behaviors such as task avoidance. The mediation result is additional supported by findings in occupational health psychology [10], which emphasize satisfaction as a key psychological instrument connecting work conditions to performance outcomes. These findings are mainly relevant in the background of nursing in Sulaimaniah hospitals, where the majority of nurses were female (78%), moderately young (63% under 35), and working in physically and passionately demanding departments such as ICU and emergency units. This demographic outline proposes a staff that may be more approachable to ergonomic improvements, as younger nurses are in earlier career stages where job satisfaction strongly effects long-term commitment and performance. Additionally, provided the high proportion of nurses working day shifts (45%) or rotating schedules (25%), enhancing ergonomic factors could also moderate fatigue-related procrastination. In conclusion, the results offer empirical support for incorporating ergonomic approaches into hospital management strategies as a means of increasing job satisfaction and decreasing procrastination. This research not only verifies previous results in the ergonomics and occupational psychology literature but also encompasses them by quantifying the mediating role of satisfaction in a Middle Eastern healthcare setting—an area that has been underrepresented in previous research. Conclusion This research validates that ergonomics plays a vital role in determining nurses’ job satisfaction and, in turn, their propensity to procrastinate. The results emphasize that when the work environment is shaped to minimize support workflow competence, improve comfort, and physical strain, and nurses report greater levels of satisfaction with their jobs. This satisfaction acts as a protection against procrastination, allowing nurses to perform their tasks more punctually and successfully. In the context of hospitals in Sulaimania, where nurses face challenging workloads and resource restraints, arranging ergonomics emerges not only as an approach for enhancing employee well-being but also as a means to improve organizational effectiveness and patient care outcomes. By addressing ergonomic challenges, hospital managers could minimize delays in task accomplishment, foster a more inspired workforce, and enhance overall service quality. Moreover, this research assessed the direct and indirect effects of ergonomics on workplace procrastination among nurses, with job satisfaction serving as a mediating factor. The findings confirmed that ergonomic conditions significantly improve job satisfaction and that greater satisfaction levels decrease procrastination. Moreover, ergonomics was found to have both a direct influence on reducing procrastination and an indirect influence through the enhancement of satisfaction levels, representing partial mediation. These results emphasize the analytical role of ergonomic workplace design in influencing both attitudinal and behavioral consequences in healthcare backgrounds. By representing that job satisfaction is a key instrument connecting ergonomics to reduced procrastination, this research provides valuable evidence to the fields of ergonomics, organizational behavior, and healthcare management, particularly within the framework of nursing in Sulaimaniah hospitals. The importance of these findings lies in their practical suggestions for hospital administrators and policymakers: executing targeted ergonomic interventions can not only enhance nurses’ physical working situations but also improve their job satisfaction, leading to better time management, reduced delays in patient care, and overall developments in healthcare service delivery. Furthermore, these findings provide an evidence-based rationale for incorporating ergonomics into tactical workforce preparation and hospital policy development to increase productivity and patient outcomes. Practical Implications The results propose that hospitals in Sulaimania can decrease procrastination among nurses by participating in ergonomic enhancements such as safe patient-handling equipment, proper lighting, optimized workstation layouts, and adjustable chairs. By entrenching ergonomics into workplace policy, managers not only increase job satisfaction but also promote a culture of competence, which translates to healthier patient care and fewer medical faults. Nurse supervisors should participate ergonomic awareness into day-to-day work practices. For instance, confirming rest breaks in high-stress divisions, rotating staff to eschew fatigue, assigning tasks based on ergonomic suitability could minimalize procrastination. Hospitals should improve aimed training programs on ergonomic understanding and time management. Training could aid nurses recognize how poor ergonomics contributes to job dissatisfaction and procrastination. These training programs can be incorporated into orientation periods for new employee and strengthened through ongoing workshops. Meanwhile job satisfaction mediates the connection between ergonomics and procrastination, HR departments could highlight ergonomics in their nurse retention strategies. Ergonomically understanding environments not only lessen burnout but also increase morale, leading to greater retention rates and reduced recruitment costs in the Sulaimania healthcare sector. Theoretical implications There are three theoretical implications emerging from the findings of our study. First, our study investigated the nurse’ perceptions of ergonomic practices. This is important because the overwhelming majority of the empirical studies have assessed ergonomics in different context (Andersen & Broberg,2021), our study attempts to fill the void in the health care management literature. As well as, as potently discussed by different recent studies, the extant literature lacks sufficient evidence showing the underlying mechanism through which employees' perceptions of ergonomics practices are linked to procrastination behavior. Nurse who perceives that the ergonomics initiatives critical for success and survival reciprocate with elevated levels of job satisfaction, and vanishing procrastination. In other words, they utilize cues to interpret dangerous and risks and develop attitudes and behaviors. Such satisfied employees also reciprocate with lower procrastination. These results suggest that job satisfaction has an intervening impact in the ergonomic / procrastination at work links. Limitations: The research’s cross-sectional nature limits the capability to draw causal implications between ergonomics, job satisfaction, and procrastination. Reliance on self-administered surveys may have presented reaction bias, for instance social desirability or recall bias. The research was directed solely in Sulaimania hospitals, which might limit the generalizability of results to other regions or healthcare systems. The restricted emphasis on nurses means that outcomes might not be fully appropriate to other hospital staff categories. Future Studies: Future study should adopt longitudinal designs to improve and generate causal relationships between ergonomics, satisfaction, and procrastination. Executing and assessing particular ergonomic interventions in controlled backgrounds could reinforce causal claims and practical guidelines. Increasing the study to comprise multiple cities or countries would provide a wider viewpoint and improve generalizability. Future work could investigate additional mediators or moderators, for instance stress levels, organizational culture, or leadership style, to increase deeper understandings into the mechanisms at play. Combination of the ergonomic evaluations with psychological and organizational system of measurement might yield more comprehensive strategies for enhancing nurse performance and well-being. Declarations Acknowledgements I thank all nurses who participated in the study. Authors’ contributions The study has only one other, who conducted the Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing- Original draft preparation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Funding No external funding was received. Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Ethical approval and permission to conduct the study were obtained from the research ethical committees of Koya University, Kurdistan region of Iraq (reference number: KUHS25002). Every technique was carried out in accordance with the rules and standards suggested by the Helsinki Declaration. The current study, which focuses on nurses, is non-sensitive, without collecting personal or sensitive data. All participants provided informed consent prior to filling the questionnaire. Ensured that participation was voluntary and that the data collected were kept anonymous, complying with standard ethical practices for such research. The ethical committee consist of: Prof.Dr. Yasir Al-Jumailil, Ass. Prof. Dr. Rekurd Sarhang, and Dr. Hunar Omer Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The author declares no competing interests. References Coluci MZ, Alexandre NM. Psychometric properties evaluation of a new ergonomics-related job factors questionnaire developed for nursing workers. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1588–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.007 . Rogers B, Buckheit K, Ostendorf J. Ergonomics and nursing in hospital environments. Workplace health Saf. 2013;61(10):429–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507991306101003 . Kamala V, Yamini S, Gajanand MS. Ergonomic risks affecting the performance of work-from-home employees in IT industry: a comprehensive analysis. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2025;74(2):389–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2023-0561 . Wilson JR. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl Ergon. 2000;31(6):557–67. Sinno N, Ammoun M, Ferdous Alam AS. The impact of ergonomics on employees’ productivity in the architectural workplaces. Int J Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 2020. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.E1157.0585C19 . Mokarami H, Eskandari S, Cousins R, Salesi M, Kazemi R, Razeghi M, Choobineh A. Development and validation of a Nurse Station Ergonomics Assessment (NSEA) tool. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00600-8 . Locke EA. What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human performance. 1969;4(4):309–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0 Moharram-Nejadifard M, Saed O, Taheri S, Ahmadnia E. The effect of cognitive behavioural group therapy on the workplace and decisional procrastination of midwives: A randomized controlled trial. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2020;25(6):514–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_206_19 . Metin UB, Peeters MC, Taris TW. Correlates of procrastination and performance at work: The role of having good fit. J Prev Interv Community. 2018;46(3):228–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2018.1470187 . El-Sayed AA, Goda SF, Elbialy GG. Threats of nursing productivity in the digital era: investigating the interplay between smartphones addiction and procrastination behavior among nurses. BMC Nurs. 2024;23(1):577. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02218-y . Aslan Y, Özdil Y. Examination of Healthcare Demand Procrastination Behaviors from a Societal Perspective. J Community Health Res. 2025 Jan;25. https://doi.org/10.18502/jchr.v14i2.17682 . Metin UB, Taris TW, Peeters MC. Measuring procrastination at work and its associated workplace aspects. Pers Indiv Differ. 2016;101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.006 . :254 – 63. El-Sherbeeny AM, Al-Romeedy BS, Abd Elhady MH, Sheikhelsouk S, Alsetoohy O, Liu S, Khairy HA. How is job performance affected by ergonomics in the tourism and hospitality industry? Mediating roles of work engagement and talent retention. Sustainability. 2023;15(20):14947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014947 . Sönmez K, Yilmaz S, Karabay D. Effects of Psychosocial and Ergonomic Risk Perceptions in the Hospital Environment on Employee Health, Job Performance, and Absenteeism. InHealthcare 2025 Apr 26 (Vol. 13, No. 9, p. 1000). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091000 Thabit F, Almaamari Q, Abdulrab M, AlMamary YH, Alshammari H. The role of employee satisfaction as mediator in the relationship between rewards, work environment, and employee performance. Int J Intellect Hum Resource Manage (IJIHRM). 2022;3(01):42–53. https://doi.org/10.46988/IJIHRM.03.01.2022.006 . Hen M, Goroshit M, Viengarten S. How decisional and general procrastination relate to procrastination at work: An investigation of office and non-office workers. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;172:110581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110581 . Steel P, Taras D, Ponak A, Kammeyer-Mueller J. Self-regulation of slippery deadlines: the role of procrastination in work performance. Front Psychol. 2022;12:783789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.783789 . Faeq DK. Narcissistic leadership, workplace bullying, turnover intention, and creative performance: a study of nurses. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):898. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03479-x . Xue H, Jing S, Song X, Zhang F, Liu X, Si X. Clinical nurses’ work procrastination and smartphone addiction: A potential profile study. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1387288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387288 . Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J managerial Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 . Yu J, Wu Y. The impact of enforced working from home on employee job satisfaction during COVID-19: An event system perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13207. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413207 . Baumeister RF, Heatherton TF. Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychol Inq. 1996;7(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1 . Doğan SE, Altınbaş Y. The Relationship Between Ergonomics Level, Job And Life Satisfaction Of Healthcare Workers In Turkey. Ergonomi. 2024;7(3):227–35. https://doi.org/10.33439/ergonomi.1514689 . Ramos-García VM, López-Leyva JA, Ramos-García RI, García-Ochoa JJ, Ochoa-Vázquez I, Guerrero-Ortega P, Verdugo-Miranda R, Verdugo-Miranda S. Ergonomic factors that impact job satisfaction and occupational health during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic based on a structural equation model: A cross-sectional exploratory analysis of university workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):10714. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710714 . Herawati H, Setyadi D, Michael M, Hidayati T. The effect of workload, supervisor, and coworker supports on job performance through job satisfaction. Int J Finance Econ Bus. 2023;2(1):13–33. https://doi.org/10.56225/ijfeb.v2i1.168 . Yiğit AB, Toker K. From exhaustion to insight: Uncovering the antecedents of work stress among healthcare professionals. WORK. 2025;80(2):750–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815241289662 . Berger Ploszaj HH, Rocha Fernandes BH, Camou Viacava JJ, Nassar Cardoso A. Understanding the associations between work from home, job satisfaction, work-life balance, stress, and gender in an organizational context of remote work. Discover Psychol. 2025;5(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00342-7 . Silva RM, Tamiozzo J, Beck CL, Pretto CR, Freitas ED, Camponogara S. Health symptoms and impacts of work on nursing professionals in a public hospital. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP. 2021;55:e20210072. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2021-0072 . Schubert K, Zeschke M, Zacher H. What to do when there is nothing to do? Toward a better understanding of idle time at work. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(14):11871–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02445-5 . Wei LW. Deciphering the Dynamics: A Self-Report Correlational Investigation into Workplace Stress, Procrastination, and Job Satisfaction amongst Employees at Academic Institution. J China-ASEAN Stud. 2024;4(2):84–105. Spyridaki E, Galanakis M. Locus of control theory, productivity, job satisfaction, and procrastination: A systematic literature review in the organizational context of the 21st century. Psychology. 2022;12(12):965–70. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.12.008 . Sunarta S, Tjahjono HK, Muafi M, Prajogo W. Organizational Justice on Employee Procrastination: a Moderated-Mediation Model of Job Satisfaction and Psychological Contract Breach. Int J Prof Bus Review: Int J Prof Bus Rev. 2023;8(5):83. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.1881 . Musteață I, Holman AC. Factors of Workplace Procrastination: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences (2076 – 0760). 2025;14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14060380 Mosquera P, Soares ME, Dordio P. The thief of time and social sustainability: Analysis of a procrastination at work model. Revista de Administração de Empresas. 2022;62:e2021–0313. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020220510 . Beheshty SS, Torkan R. The Impact of Career Plateauing on Organizational Procrastination Mediated by Job Satisfaction in Cooperatives, Labor & Social Welfare Offices. J Industrial Sociol. 2025;1(1):111–32. https://doi.org/10.22034/jis.2025.721528 . Yildiz H, Yildiz B. Effects of positive and negative cyberloafing on safety behaviors and occupational incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Bayesian network analysis. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2025;31(1):248–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2024.2428569 . Torabi M, Afshari A, Salimi R, Khazaei A. Leveling of triggers: a comprehensive summative content analysis of factors contributing to physical violence in emergency medical services. BMC Emerg Med. 2025;25(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01181-4 . Xiaolong T, Gull N, Asghar M, Sarfraz M, Jianmin Z. Does perceived supervisor support reduce turnover intention? The mediating effects of work engagement among healthcare professionals. Work. 2023;74(3):1001–13. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210509 . Rahmila S, Denny HM, Dewi EK. Factors influencing perception of psychosocial risk among health workers at roemani muhammadiyah hospital. Jurnal Konseling dan Pendidikan. 2025;13(1):70–9. https://doi.org/10.29210/1139500 . Óskarsdóttir HG, Oddsson GV, Sturluson JÞ, Sæmundsson RJ. Towards a holistic framework of knowledge worker productivity. Administrative Sci. 2022;12(2):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020050 . Supriyadi T, Sulistiasih S, Rahmi KH, Pramono B, Fahrudin A. The Impact Of Digital Fatigue On Employee Productivity And Well-Being: A Scoping Literature Review. Environ Social Psychol. 2025;10(2). https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i2.3420 . Vveinhardt J, Sroka W. What determines employee procrastination and multitasking in the workplace: personal qualities or mismanagement? J Bus Econ Manage (JBEM). 2022;23(3):532–50. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.16178 . Globalisation CP, Cybal-Michalska A, Social, Ergonomics O. Vol. 152, 2024, 87–102 AHFE. Social and Occupational Ergonomics. 2024 Jul 24:87. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1005324 Hu H, Wang C, Lan Y, Wu X. Nurses’ turnover intention, hope and career identity: the mediating role of job satisfaction. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00821-5 . Rizal S, Rasulong I, Wahjono SI. Leadership, environment, and lecturer performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction in Islamic higher education. Al-Tanzim: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam. 2024;8(4):1164-78. https://doi.org/10.33650/al-tanzim.v8i4.9215 Nanjundeswaraswamy TS. The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment. J Economic Administrative Sci. 2023;39(2):286–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-02-2021-0029 . Dodanwala TC, Santoso DS. The mediating role of job stress on the relationship between job satisfaction facets and turnover intention of the construction professionals. Eng Constr Architectural Manage. 2022;29(4):1777–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2020-1048 . Cayupe JC, Bernedo-Moreira DH, Morales-García WC, Alcaraz FL, Peña KB, Saintila J, Flores-Paredes A. Self-efficacy, organizational commitment, workload as predictors of life satisfaction in elementary school teachers: the mediating role of job satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1066321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1066321 . Cao TH, Chai DS, Nguyen LP, Nguyen HT, Han CS, Park S. Learning organization and employee performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction in the Vietnamese context. Learn Organ. 2025;32(7):53–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2023-0177 . Karsh BT, Moro FB, Smith MJ. The efficacy of workplace ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: a critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci. 2001;2(1):23–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220152644533 . Hignett S, Wilson JR. The role of ergonomics in healthcare delivery. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci. 2004;5(3):271–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1245446 . Karsh B, Moro FB, Smith MJ. The efficacy of workplace ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: A critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci. 2001;2(1):23–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/146392201300001074 . Robertson MM, Huang YH. Effect of a workplace design and training intervention on individual performance, group effectiveness and collaboration: The role of environmental control. Work. 2006;27(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2006-27102 . Weiss DJ, Dawis RV, England GW, Lofquist LH. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center; 1967. Tuckman BW. The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 1991;51(2):473–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512022 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7519724","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":515333130,"identity":"d9adf7a8-30f6-45b6-9649-bb5ac1a561bf","order_by":0,"name":"Dalia Khalid Faeq","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Koya University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dalia","middleName":"Khalid","lastName":"Faeq","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-02 16:23:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7519724/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7519724/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91528403,"identity":"35c8a4a6-7e5e-42f0-9c12-50f4fd549a5b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 11:25:36","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39144,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7519724/v1/eee3db32c5960508fc4790fb.png"},{"id":91528404,"identity":"52103761-9518-49ee-986e-f96172efd12d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-17 11:25:36","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40155,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFinal Results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7519724/v1/44f10fb23d05ac4b7db2c293.png"},{"id":102747674,"identity":"d8ba084c-867b-4f64-8495-17642f8cd1a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 09:05:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1059214,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7519724/v1/2fe8cd7b-d7c8-48e3-95c5-752034681c8f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"How Ergonomics Influences Nurse Procrastination Through Job Satisfaction: Analysis of Hospitals in Sulaimania","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNurses in the healthcare sector experience various job characteristics, including repetitive movements, prolonged postures, physical exertion, task monotony, mechanical pressure on specific body areas, static work effects, vibration, cold exposure, and organizational psychosocial factors [1,2]. A well-designed ergonomic setup helps mitigate several work-related musculoskeletal problems, including carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, muscular strains, and lower back injuries\u0026nbsp;[3]. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indicates that musculoskeletal disorders associated with the job account for almost 33% of all work-related injuries. Many organizations endeavor to implement UpToDate tactics to cultivate a healthy work environment, including ergonomic principles that tailor work to the individual. Ergonomics is described as “the theoretical and fundamental understanding of human behavior and performance in purposeful interacting socio-technical systems”\u0026nbsp;[4]. The role of an ergonomist is to design items, services, and environments to enhance individual well-being and optimize overall system performance\u0026nbsp;[5]. In these conditions, such, nurses are anticipated to exhibit satisfaction with their organization\u0026nbsp;[6]. Job satisfaction refers to \"the pleasurable emotional state arising from the evaluation of one’s job as fulfilling or aiding the attainment of one’s job values\"\u0026nbsp;[7]. \u0026nbsp;Satisfied nurses may exhibit condensed procrastination, which is characterized as an illogical inclination to postpone task execution or decision-making, despite awareness of the negative consequences of such delays. The prevalence of procrastination in the general population is from 15% to 20%\u0026nbsp;[8]. Exhibiting elevated degrees of procrastination consumes a considerable portion of work hours on non-job-related activities. Consequently, to complete everyday duties, individuals may extend their working hours (leading to diminished focus and increased fatigue) or hasten their tasks (perhaps resulting in errors)\u0026nbsp;[9]. Procrastination in the healthcare industry jeopardizes not only the career advancement of nurses but also poses risks to patients' health and lives\u0026nbsp;[10,11]. Procrastination in the workplace is classified into two distinct behavioral patterns. Soldiering and cyberslacking\u0026nbsp;[8]. Soldiering is the act of evading job responsibilities for over one hour daily without the intention of causing detriment or transferring obligations to others\u0026nbsp;[9]. Cyberslacking is a common phenomenon that encompasses activities such as online shopping, browsing social media, gaming, or instant messaging during work hours instead of performing job-related duties\u0026nbsp;[12]. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAgainst this backdrop, this study proposes and test a conceptual model that investigates the mediating model of job satisfaction in the relationship between ergonomics and procrastination at the work. Specially, this study examines: (a) the effects of ergonomics on nurses’ job satisfaction and procrastination; (b) the influence of nurses’ job satisfaction on procrastination; (c) job satisfaction as a mediator of the effect of ergonomics on procrastination. The current study contributes to the literature in the following ways:First, although the association between ergonomics and employees’ behavior has been explored in different industries [13], still there is a lack regarding this relationship specifically within the context of the health care industry among nurses\u0026nbsp;[14], particularly when considering the mediating role of job satisfaction\u0026nbsp;[15]. Second, a review of the existing literature reveals that the precursors of workplace procrastination have been predominantly overlooked. This is evident from recent limited investigations.\u0026nbsp;[16]\u0026nbsp;contend that procrastination is a widespread phenomenon in contemporary society, necessitating further investigation by scholars into its nature and prevention methods.\u0026nbsp;[17]\u0026nbsp;asserts that the factors contributing to workplace procrastination require investigation.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[8]\u0026nbsp;assert that empirical research must extend beyond previous studies that concentrate on the ramifications of procrastination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, data are gathered from nurses in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, a developing country in the Middle East, to evaluate the aforementioned linkages. This is significant as contemporary human resource management approaches among Kurdish nurses in hospitals are not prevalent [18]. Consequently, the findings of this study will provide significant insights into ergonomic management, improvement of job satisfaction, and reduction of procrastination among nurses in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research emphasizes on principles from Ergonomics Theory, Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources (JD-R) Model, and Self-Regulation Theory to clarify the relations among ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination in nursing contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eErgonomics and Job Satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErgonomics theory suggests that the strategy of work environments\u0026mdash;encompassing workstation arrangement, equipment approachability, lighting, noise mechanism, and reduction of physical straining, which significantly influence employee well-being and outcome [19,10,14]. Previous study has constantly revealed that ergonomic conditions in the workplace, for instance suitable workplace scheme, appropriate equipment placement, and ideal lighting which play a significant role in improving staff well-being and job outcome. According to Ergonomics Theory, a workstation considered to fit the employee\u0026apos;s physical and cognitive requirements decreases musculoskeletal strain, psychological fatigue, and workflow disorganizations. In the nursing framework, where responsibilities frequently include long hours, patient treatment, and accuracy work, well-structured ergonomics straight contributes to well-being, safety, and productivity. This, in turn, promotes better job satisfaction as nurses feel physically reinforced and less burdened by preventable embarrassment or injury possibilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources (JD-R) Model [20]\u0026nbsp;additional clarifies this association by theorizing ergonomics as a job resource\u0026nbsp;[21]\u0026nbsp;that controls the negative consequences of high job demands. In healthcare, job difficulties for instance demonstrative strain, time difficulty, and physical effort are predictable. Though, at what time ergonomic resources (e.g., adaptable equipment, protected patient-handling strategies, concentrated noise levels) are in place, they buffer the influence of these difficulties, improving commitment and satisfaction. Insufficient ergonomics, equally, can increase physical strain, contributing to disappointment and exhaustion. From the viewpoint of Self-Regulation Theory\u0026nbsp;[22], ergonomically understanding environments support nurses in sustaining their physical and conceptual energy, empowering superior rule of effort, consideration, and demonstrative answers during challenging shifts. Once nurses work in environments that decrease unnecessary strain, they conserve self-regulatory resources, leading to a more positive emotional state and higher satisfaction with their employment. In contrast, inadequately intended workspaces drain self-regulatory capability, decreasing satisfaction and rising the probability of maladaptive coping behaviors such as procrastination. In sum, by positioning workplace strategy with Ergonomics Theory, leveraging ergonomics as a job resource within the JD-R framework, and identifying its role in preservative self-regulatory capability, it becomes obvious why enhanced ergonomic conditions are powerfully related to greater job satisfaction among nurses. These theoretical viewpoints together clarify how physical work environment developments can directly improve nurses\u0026rsquo; well-being, inspiration, and whole satisfaction. According to the JD-R model, ergonomically enhanced atmospheres act as job resources that can reduce physical stresses and improve well-being, thereby increasing job satisfaction. It seems there are few studies that provide evidence for the link between ergonomics and job satisfaction. For instance,\u0026nbsp;[17]\u0026nbsp;found a positive connection between ergonomics and work satisfaction. In a study of health care workers in Turkey,\u0026nbsp;[23]\u0026nbsp;showed that ergonomics influenced job satisfaction.\u0026nbsp;[24]\u0026nbsp;proved that ergonomic factors impact job satisfaction during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among university workers. Empirical researches support this connection, displaying that enhanced ergonomics positively relates with job satisfaction among healthcare labors\u0026nbsp;[25, 21, 26]. Based on this reasoning:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH1: Ergonomics has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction among nurses.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJob Satisfaction and Workplace Procrastination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-Regulation Theory proposes that individuals with higher satisfaction and engagement are more probable to adjust their work behaviors successfully and less likely to delay responsibilities \u0026nbsp;[27, 28, 29]. In nursing, where timely task completion is critical, higher job satisfaction can rise inspiration and obligation, decreasing inclinations toward procrastination.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn healthcare situations, job satisfaction reproduces the degree to which nurses feel appreciated, supported, and satisfied in their roles. Higher job satisfaction is related with superior intrinsic motivation, greater obligation to organizational objectives, and a greater sense of accountability toward patient care. According to the Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources (JD-R) Model [20], job satisfaction develops when the stability between job demands and resources is satisfactory. Once nurses have satisfactory resources, for instance helpful management, adequate staffing, and active teamwork, they are better prepared to meet work requirements without unnecessary strain\u0026nbsp;[30]. This decreases the possibility of disconnection and counterproductive behaviors, like workplace procrastination. Equally, dissatisfaction regularly reproduces unmet requirements and resource insufficiencies, leading staffs to delay tasks as a coping instrument to avoid stress or prevention\u0026nbsp;[31]. From the lens system of Self-Regulation Theory\u0026nbsp;[32], job satisfaction positively effects a nurse\u0026rsquo;s capability to control attention, enthusiasm, and task perseverance. Satisfied nurses incline to experience more progressive affect, which reloads self-control resources and allows continued emphasis on time-sensitive tasks. Dissatisfied staffs, though, frequently experience emotional tiredness, which reduces self-regulatory capability, making them more disposed to to procrastination as an avoidance approach. For example, a dissatisfied nurse might delay managerial charting or follow-up demands, not because of workload only, but due to emotional disconnection from the job\u0026nbsp;[33].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical indication similarly supports this connection, presentation that staffs with greater satisfaction levels involve less in procrastination because they observe their tasks as expressive and associated with personal and specialized values [34]. In nursing, this arrangement is particularly serious, as delays in patient care responsibilities can have thoughtful results. Consequently, when satisfaction is high, nurses are more probable to take proprietorship of accountabilities punctually, decreasing procrastination behaviors \u0026nbsp;[32]. \u0026nbsp;In summary, the negative association between job satisfaction and workplace procrastination in the nursing setting can be clarified by the JD-R Model\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on resource obtainability and by Self-Regulation Theory\u0026rsquo;s opinion of satisfaction as a replenisher of self-control resources. Together, these theories show that refining satisfaction is an applied pathway to decreasing procrastination and enhancing care quality [35]. A scrutiny of the relevant literature reveals that empirical evidence about the association of job satisfaction with procrastination at work is sparse. For example, [20] demonstrated that job satisfaction exerted a negative influence on procrastination. [30] reported a negative association between job satisfaction and job procrastination among employees in China. [32] reported a negative association between job satisfaction and procrastination. Earlier studies in healthcare have found that satisfied staffs determine lower levels of task avoidance and delay [36, 37, 38]. Consequently:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eH2: Job satisfaction has a significant negative effect on workplace procrastination among nurses.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eErgonomics and Workplace Procrastination\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErgonomic deficiencies, for instance as inadequately proposed workplaces or inaccessible tools, can lead to physical discomfort and system disorganizations, which might indirectly inspire procrastination through avoidance behaviors [39, 40, 41]. Equally, well-designed ergonomic environments can enable task completion by decreasing exhaustion and discomfort, thus directly decreasing procrastination.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn nursing, ergonomic scheme states to the optimization of workplaces, equipment, and workflow to decrease physical strain, improve comfort, and support well-organized task performance. According to Ergonomics Theory Dul \u0026amp; Weerdmeester, a well-made work atmosphere brings into line with the employee\u0026apos;s physical and cognitive competences, reducing redundant energy and discomfort. Insufficient ergonomics, such as inadequately situated equipment, insufficient lighting, or substantial physical handling requirements, might lead to exhaustion, embarrassment, and frustration [33]. These circumstances frequently contribute to task avoidance, as nurses might delay physically demanding or uncooperative events, rising workplace procrastination. Equally, supportive ergonomic design reduces needless obstacles, making it easier for nurses to begin and finish tasks rapidly [17]. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources (JD-R) Model settings ergonomics as a job resource that responds the strain produced by high job demands. In high-pressure healthcare situations, where nurses face time-sensitive tasks and expressive difficulties, poor ergonomics enhances to the physical and cognitive load, demanding energy and inspiring avoidance behaviors. Better-quality ergonomics decreases these demands, allowing nurses to sustain emphasis and commitment, thus decreasing procrastination tendencies. For instance, easy admission to well-ordered medical supplies can decrease the time and determination needed for task commencement, discouraging delay [42]. From the viewpoint of Self-Regulation Theory, physical discomfort and exhaustion from poor ergonomics reduce self-control resources, turning it into more difficult to resist procrastination. When nurses function in an ergonomically helpful atmosphere, they conserve physical and cognitive energy, which could then be assigned toward timely task implementation. This protection of self-regulatory capability decreases the probability of engaging in procrastination as a managing instrument\u0026nbsp;[43].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical researches support this relation, presentation that atmospheres designed with ergonomic principles decrease physical strain, increase workflow competence, and improve work commitment, which together reduce the frequency of procrastination behaviors [33]. In nursing, where delayed act could influence patient consequences, enlightening ergonomics is not only a matter of ease but a serious approach to decrease procrastination and increase care delivery. In empirical terms,\u0026nbsp;[12]\u0026nbsp;found that work environments that contain insufficient resources and demands may increase boredom, which might eventually lead employees to engage in irrelevant or even harmful behaviors like procrastination. Barabanshchikova et al. (2018)provided evidence among employees of a modern Russian industrial enterprise that organizational factors influence procrastination. Research in occupational backgrounds supports the concept that ergonomic improvements decrease delays in task execution\u0026nbsp;[19,10,4].Therefore:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH3: Ergonomics has a significant negative total effect on workplace procrastination.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediating Role of Job Satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe JD-R model also suggests that job resources, for instance ergonomic circumstances, effect performance consequences through motivational routes like job satisfaction. Ergonomic developments can rise job satisfaction, which in turn decreases procrastination, proposing a mediating effect. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mediating role of job satisfaction between ergonomics and workplace procrastination could be clarified by the merged perceptions of Ergonomics Theory, the Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources (JD-R) Model, and Self-Regulation Theory. According to Ergonomics Theory Dul \u0026amp; Weerdmeester, a work atmosphere planned to meet the physical and mental needs of staffs decreases strain, increases comfort, and enables workflow competence. In the nursing background, ergonomically enhanced conditions, such as adaptable patient beds, helpful seating, prearranged supply positions, and noise reduction procedures, generate a more optimistic work experience [44]. This physical ease translates into greater job satisfaction, as nurses feel reinforced and appreciated by their hospitals through the establishment of appropriate working conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe JD-R Model additional explains this mediation by inclosing ergonomics as a job resource that counterbalances the extreme physical and emotional difficulties of nursing. Satisfactory ergonomic resources decrease job stressors and improve arrangement, leading to superior job satisfaction. In turn, greater satisfaction raises stronger intrinsic motivation and task obligation, which decreases the possibility of procrastination. Therefore, ergonomics influences procrastination not only straight but similarly indirectly, through its optimistic effect on satisfaction \u0026nbsp;[45]. From the lens of Self-Regulation Theory, job satisfaction plays a vital role in preserving and replenishing self-control resources. Nurses who work in helpful ergonomic circumstances experience less physical uneasiness and psychological fatigue, which improves satisfaction and psychological well-being [46]. This positive influence state reinforces their capability to start and complete responsibilities without unnecessary delay [47]. Equally, when ergonomics is poor, reduced satisfaction could lead to emotional tiredness, reducing self-regulatory competence and raising procrastination as an evasion behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical indication supports this mediation pathway: researchers have found that enhanced ergonomics leads to greater job satisfaction, which afterward decreases counterproductive work behaviors such as procrastination [48]. In the high-stakes nursing atmosphere, where delays could compromise patient protection, this mediating association underlines the significance of addressing both physical workstation strategy and employee satisfaction as interconnected levers for enhancing production and care quality\u0026nbsp;[49]. In practical terms there are several studies that treated job satisfaction as a mediator mechanism.\u0026nbsp;[32]\u0026nbsp;found that job satisfaction mediates the relation between organizational justice and procrastination behavior among educational staff in Indonesia.\u0026nbsp;[32], revealed that job satisfaction mediates the relationships between conflicts and perceived job performance.\u0026nbsp;[20]\u0026nbsp;proved that job satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and life satisfaction among nurses in Chinese hospitals.\u0026nbsp;[42]\u0026nbsp;found that interprofessional teamwork was directly associated with nurses\u0026apos; intentions to leave. The influence of teamwork on intention to leave among nurses in Oman was indirectly mediated by job satisfaction. Earlier mediation researches in organizational behavior have validated that job satisfaction can aid as an indirect direction between workplace circumstances and performance-related behaviors\u0026nbsp;[29, 36,\u0026nbsp;37]. Consequently:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH4: Job satisfaction significantly mediates the relationship between ergonomics and workplace procrastination.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe diagram (figure 1) demonstrates the theoretical framework connecting ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination, with job satisfaction serving as a mediating variable. It suggests four hypotheses (H1\u0026ndash;H4). H1 suggests that ergonomics has a significant positive influence on job satisfaction, signifying that a well-designed work atmosphere improves staffs\u0026rsquo; satisfaction levels. H2 suggests that job satisfaction negatively effects workplace procrastination, meaning that satisfied staffs are less expected to delay tasks. H3 proposes a direct negative association between ergonomics and workplace procrastination, suggesting that an effective ergonomic condition could directly decrease procrastination. H4 shows that job satisfaction mediates the association between ergonomics and workplace procrastination, emphasizing an indirect pathway where ergonomics increases job satisfaction, which in turn decreases procrastination. This conceptual framework highlights both direct and indirect outcomes, underlining the significance of workplace strategy in development employee well-being and productivity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research applied a quantitative, cross-sectional, correlational research design to study the direct and indirect effects of ergonomics on nurses\u0026rsquo; workplace procrastination, with job satisfaction conceptualized as a mediating variable. The selection of a quantitative method is supported in the essential to measure and statistically validate the strength and direction of relations among variables, whereas the cross-sectional environment of the research approved for taking opinions and behaviors at a certain point in time. The correlational design allowed study of existing patterns without influencing the research background, appropriate for a healthcare framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Population and Sampling Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe target population included registered nurses working in public, private hospitals in Sulaimania, Iraq. Nurses were designated because they operate in ergonomically sensitive atmospheres that directly affect task outcome and well-being. To confirm demonstration across different organizational and clinical settings, the research employed a stratified random sampling method. The strata were based on key factors such as hospital type, department/unit (e.g., ICU, emergency), and shift type (e.g., day, night, rotating). A total of 187 nurses were recruited. This sample size is statistically satisfactory for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Hayes PROCESS mediation analysis, ensuring generalizability of the results within similar clinical settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstrumentation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were gathered through a structured, self-administered survey that comprised of four principal units:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSection 1: Demographic Information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis unit collected background information for instance age, gender, marital status, educational qualification, years of experience, department/unit, kind of hospital, and shift category. These variables assisted to contextualize the nurses and allowed for subgroup assessments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSection 2: Ergonomics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis unit measured nurses\u0026rsquo; insights of ergonomic conditions in their work atmosphere. Five items were modified from [50] and [51], concentrating on workstation comfort, approachability of equipment, noise and lighting, and general physical strain. \u0026nbsp;This section of the questionnaire was Modified from [52], moreover ,answers were captured utilizing a 5-point\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eLikert\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003escale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSample item: \u0026ldquo;My nursing workstation is designed to support proper posture and comfort.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability\u003c/strong\u003e: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha = 0.84\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSection 3: Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis unit items\u0026rsquo; were modified from \u0026nbsp;[53]. It included five declarations assessing intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors for instance recognition, fulfillment, and organizational support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSample item: \u0026ldquo;I find my nursing work meaningful and fulfilling.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability\u003c/strong\u003e: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha = 0.87\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSection 4: Workplace Procrastination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eItems in this division were modified from \u0026nbsp;[54]. and adapted for the hospital background. Five statements evaluated task avoidance, distraction, and delay in completing nursing responsibilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSample item: \u0026ldquo;I sometimes delay completing patient care tasks even when I have time to do them.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability\u003c/strong\u003e: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha = 0.82\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValidity and Reliability Testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo confirm construct validity, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. The consequences designated that:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e Validity and Reliability Testing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor Loadings Range\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAVE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConvergent Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErgonomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68 \u0026ndash; 0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAchieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71 \u0026ndash; 0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAchieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Procrastination\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66 \u0026ndash; 0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAchieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe measurement model (table 1) findings show that all three constructs; Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination, exhibited satisfactory convergent validity. For Ergonomics, factor loadings ranged from 0.68 to 0.84, with an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.59 and a Composite Reliability (CR) of 0.85, above the suggested levels of 0.50 for AVE and 0.70 for CR. Job Satisfaction presented factor loadings between 0.71 and 0.88, an AVE of 0.64, and a CR of 0.89, similarly meeting the standards for convergent validity. Correspondingly, Workplace Procrastination had factor loadings ranging from 0.66 to 0.81, an AVE of 0.57, and a CR of 0.83, demonstrating satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity. These findings verify that the dimension items for each construct reliably signify their essential dormant variables. These findings validate that all constructs accomplished acceptable levels for convergent validity and internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData gathering took place over a three-week period. Earlier to allocation, ethical permission was achieved from the hospital authorities. Nurses were voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was attained from all nurses. The survey was administered both in paper format and online via a secure platform to accommodate various hospital systems and obtainability. Nurses accomplished the evaluation during scheduled break times or after their shifts to avoid interference with patient care. Data were firmly stored and only accessible to the research team.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis Techniques\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were examined employing SPSS (Version 28) and the Hayes PROCESS Macro (Model 4) for mediation analysis. The following steps were taken:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDescriptive Statistics: applied to summarize demographic data.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReliability Analysis: Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha evaluated internal consistency for each measure.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): To evaluate construct validity utilizing factor loadings, AVE, and CR.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePearson Correlation: To investigate the strength and direction of relations among factors.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMultiple Regression Analysis: To exam direct effects (H1\u0026ndash;H3).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMediation Analysis:\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eModel 4 of Hayes PROCESS Macro was affected to measure indirect effects (H4).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBootstrapping was utilized to construct bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA mediation influence was measured important if the confidence interval for the indirect effect did not include zero.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study followed ethical procedures in line with the Declaration of Helsinki. The following values were perceived:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInformed Consent: All nurses expected a clarification of the research purpose and agreed voluntarily.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConfidentiality: No personal identifiers were collected; data were anonymized.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRight to Withdraw: nurses were informed that they could withdraw at any time without consequences.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis and Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis section demonstrates the statistical results of the research, beginning with a descriptive analysis of nurses\u0026rsquo; demographic features to create the framework of the research sample. Reliability analysis is next applied to measure the internal consistency of the measurement instruments, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess convergent validity. Lastly, mediation analysis applying Hayes PROCESS Model 4 is executed to test the hypothesized relationships between ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination. Together, these statistical analyses demonstrate a comprehensive summary of the dataset and the strength of the proposed model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e Descriptive Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnder 25\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;34\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u0026ndash;44\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u0026ndash;54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55+\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e146\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarital Status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced/Widowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighest Nursing Qualification\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiploma\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYears of Experience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLess than 1 yr\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5 yrs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 yrs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10+ yrs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCurrent Department\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmergency\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eICU\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePediatrics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSurgical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedical\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHospital Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeaching\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShift Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 262px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRotating\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe demographic (table 2) outline of the nurses reveals key features that are significant for considerate the research background and interpreting its results. In terms of age distribution, the largest proportion of nurses falls within the 25\u0026ndash;34 age group (35%), followed by those under 25 (28%), representing a moderately young nursing workforce that may be more flexible to change and open to new practices. Gender distribution is remarkably skewed, with females including 78% of the sample, which bring into line with worldwide trends in the nursing profession and reproduces the gendered nature of healthcare work. Marital status displays that 58% of nurses are married, which could affect work\u0026ndash;life balance thoughts, while 34% are single and 8% divorced or widowed. Concerning educational contextual, a majority (68%) hold a Bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree, followed by 17% with a Master\u0026rsquo;s degree, demonstrating a commonly well-qualified workforce, with only 15% holding a diploma. Years of experience differ, with the largest group (42%) having 1\u0026ndash;5 years, suggesting a workforce with reasonable experience and possible for career growth. Departmental distribution displays a balanced distribution across ICU (24%), Pediatrics (20%), and Emergency (18%), reflecting diverse clinical exposure. Hospital kind data exposes that 52% of nurses work in public hospitals, 38% in private, and 10% in teaching hospitals, representing a combination of institutional backgrounds. Shift type distribution underlines that 45% work day shifts, 30%-night shifts, and 25% rotating shifts, which is important for understanding workload designs, fatigue, and possible influences on job satisfaction and performance. These demographic designs provide a comprehensive background for interpretation the research variables and validate the relevance of results across different nursing subcategories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e Reliability Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of Items\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReliability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErgonomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorkplace procrastination\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reliability test (table 3) displays that all three constructs; Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination\u0026mdash;showed high internal consistency, as showed by their Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha values exceeding the extensively recognized level of 0.70 (Nunnally \u0026amp; Bernstein, 1994). Ergonomics, measured through five items, accomplished a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha of 0.84, representing that the items are highly connected and consistently measure the construct. Job Satisfaction, similarly evaluated with five items, showed an even higher alpha value of 0.87, proposing outstanding reliability and least measurement error. Workplace Procrastination, with five items, yielded an alpha of 0.82, validating robust internal consistency. These findings support the reliability of the measurement scales, confirming that the constructs are measured precisely and consistently across respondents, which strengthens the validity and credibility of subsequent statistical analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u003c/strong\u003e Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results for Convergent Validity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor Loadings Range\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 124px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposite Reliability (CR)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConvergent Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErgonomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.68 - 0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 124px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAchieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71 - 0.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 124px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAchieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorkplace procrastination\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66 - 0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 124px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAchieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe convergent validity outcomes (table 4) verify that all three constructs; Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination are well-demonstrated by their particular measurement items. For Ergonomics, the factor loadings ranged from 0.68 to 0.84, with an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.59 and a Composite Reliability (CR) of 0.85, both outstanding the suggested levels of AVE \u0026ge; 0.50 and CR \u0026ge; 0.70, thus creating convergent validity. Job Satisfaction verified factor loadings between 0.71 and 0.88, an AVE of 0.64, and a CR of 0.89, representing that the construct clarifies a considerable portion of the difference in its items and holds robust internal consistency. Workplace Procrastination recorded factor loadings from 0.66 to 0.81, with an AVE of 0.57 and a CR of 0.83, likewise meeting the essential benchmarks. These outcomes validate that each construct\u0026apos;s measurement items are both reliable and theoretically aligned with their fundamental latent variables, confirming the strength of the measurement model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u003c/strong\u003e Mediation Analysis Results Using Hayes PROCESS Model 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect Path\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCoefficient (\u0026beta;)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et-value / z-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI Lower\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI Upper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErgonomics \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction (a path)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction \u0026rarr; Procrastination (b path)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErgonomics \u0026rarr; Procrastination (c path, total effect)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Effect (a*b)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe path analysis outcomes (table 5) designate that all hypothesized relations are statistically significant and meaningful. The direct influence of Ergonomics on Job Satisfaction (a path) is strong and positive (\u0026beta; = 0.63, p \u0026lt; 0.001), with a high t-value (9.0) and a 95% confidence interval (0.49\u0026ndash;0.77), proposing that improved ergonomic circumstances considerably improve job satisfaction among nurses. Job Satisfaction, in turn, has a significant negative relationship with Workplace Procrastination (b path), with \u0026beta; = 0.55, p \u0026lt; 0.001, t = 9.17, and a confidence interval of 0.43\u0026ndash;0.67, representing that better satisfaction is related to lower procrastination behaviors. The total effect of Ergonomics on Procrastination (c path) is similarly significant (\u0026beta; = 0.48, p \u0026lt; 0.001), demonstrating that ergonomics directly decreases procrastination though likewise affecting it indirectly through job satisfaction. The indirect effect (a*b) is \u0026beta; = 0.35, p \u0026lt; 0.001, with a confidence interval of 0.22\u0026ndash;0.48, validating that job satisfaction partially mediates the association between ergonomics and procrastination. These results validate the projected mediation model, underlining that enhanced ergonomics not only directly decrease procrastination nonetheless correspondingly foster job satisfaction, which in turn further minimizes procrastination tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe diagram (figure 2) demonstrates the mediation model studying the associations between Ergonomics, Job Satisfaction, and Workplace Procrastination. The direct path from Ergonomics to Workplace Procrastination (\u0026beta; = 0.48) displays that better ergonomic circumstances are related with reduced procrastination. Furthermore, Ergonomics has a strong positive influence on Job Satisfaction (\u0026beta; = 0.63), representing that enhanced workplace ergonomics significantly improve nurse satisfaction. In turn, Job Satisfaction negatively influences Workplace Procrastination (\u0026beta; = 0.55), meaning that more satisfied nurses tend to procrastinate less.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mediation effect (\u0026beta; = 0.35) shows that part of the influence of Ergonomics on Workplace Procrastination happens indirectly through Job Satisfaction. This means that ergonomic enhancements not only decrease procrastination directly but similarly increase job satisfaction, which additional decreases procrastination levels. Generally, the model supports a partial mediation, displaying that both direct and indirect pathways are significant, emphasizing the dual role of ergonomics in influencing employee behavior and productivity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of this research verify all four projected hypotheses, representing that ergonomics has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction, job satisfaction has a significant negative effect on workplace procrastination, and ergonomics has both direct and indirect effects on reducing procrastination through the mediating role of job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe positive relationship between ergonomics and job satisfaction (β = 0.63, p \u0026lt; 0.001) aligns with previous study highlighting the significance of ergonomic workplace design in improving nurse well-being and outcome. For instance, [38]\u0026nbsp;found that ergonomic interventions in healthcare settings significantly enhanced both comfort and job satisfaction among nurses, advising that well-made workplaces, satisfactory lighting, and accessible tools reduce physical strain and increase work efficiency. Correspondingly,\u0026nbsp;[39]\u0026nbsp;claimed that ergonomically enhanced atmospheres contribute to better psychological well-being, which in turn improves satisfaction levels. The constancy between the results and these previous researches strengthens the argument that investment in ergonomic developments yields tangible benefits in nurse morale and inspiration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe negative association between job satisfaction and workplace procrastination (β = 0.55, p \u0026lt; 0.001) similarly supports current literature. [40]\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;[41]\u0026nbsp;both emphasized that greater job satisfaction decreases the probability of delaying work-related tasks, as satisfied nurses show higher commitment and a greater sense of responsibility toward their roles. In nursing backgrounds, where procrastination can have thoughtful consequences for patient care, these results underline the serious role of satisfaction in encouraging timely and efficient task completion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total effect of ergonomics on workplace procrastination (β = 0.48, p \u0026lt; 0.001) and the significant indirect effect through job satisfaction (β = 0.35, p \u0026lt; 0.001) designate partial mediation, meaning that whereas ergonomics directly decreases procrastination, a substantial part of its effect functions through improving satisfaction. This is aligned with the work of [19], who distinguished that ergonomic interventions not only increase physical working conditions but also shape nurses’ feelings toward their jobs, indirectly affecting behaviors such as task avoidance. The mediation result is additional supported by findings in occupational health psychology\u0026nbsp;[10], which emphasize satisfaction as a key psychological instrument connecting work conditions to performance outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings are mainly relevant in the background of nursing in Sulaimaniah hospitals, where the majority of nurses were female (78%), moderately young (63% under 35), and working in physically and passionately demanding departments such as ICU and emergency units. This demographic outline proposes a staff that may be more approachable to ergonomic improvements, as younger nurses are in earlier career stages where job satisfaction strongly effects long-term commitment and performance. Additionally, provided the high proportion of nurses working day shifts (45%) or rotating schedules (25%), enhancing ergonomic factors could also moderate fatigue-related procrastination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the results offer empirical support for incorporating ergonomic approaches into hospital management strategies as a means of increasing job satisfaction and decreasing procrastination. This research not only verifies previous results in the ergonomics and occupational psychology literature but also encompasses them by quantifying the mediating role of satisfaction in a Middle Eastern healthcare setting—an area that has been underrepresented in previous research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research validates that ergonomics plays a vital role in determining nurses’ job satisfaction and, in turn, their propensity to procrastinate. The results emphasize that when the work environment is shaped to minimize support workflow competence, improve comfort, and physical strain, and nurses report greater levels of satisfaction with their jobs. This satisfaction acts as a protection against procrastination, allowing nurses to perform their tasks more punctually and successfully. In the context of hospitals in Sulaimania, where nurses face challenging workloads and resource restraints, arranging ergonomics emerges not only as an approach for enhancing employee well-being but also as a means to improve organizational effectiveness and patient care outcomes. By addressing ergonomic challenges, hospital managers could minimize delays in task accomplishment, foster a more inspired workforce, and enhance overall service quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, this research assessed the direct and indirect effects of ergonomics on workplace procrastination among nurses, with job satisfaction serving as a mediating factor. The findings confirmed that ergonomic conditions significantly improve job satisfaction and that greater satisfaction levels decrease procrastination. Moreover, ergonomics was found to have both a direct influence on reducing procrastination and an indirect influence through the enhancement of satisfaction levels, representing partial mediation. These results emphasize the analytical role of ergonomic workplace design in influencing both attitudinal and behavioral consequences in healthcare backgrounds. By representing that job satisfaction is a key instrument connecting ergonomics to reduced procrastination, this research provides valuable evidence to the fields of ergonomics, organizational behavior, and healthcare management, particularly within the framework of nursing in Sulaimaniah hospitals. The importance of these findings lies in their practical suggestions for hospital administrators and policymakers: executing targeted ergonomic interventions can not only enhance nurses’ physical working situations but also improve their job satisfaction, leading to better time management, reduced delays in patient care, and overall developments in healthcare service delivery. Furthermore, these findings provide an evidence-based rationale for incorporating ergonomics into tactical workforce preparation and hospital policy development to increase productivity and patient outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results propose that hospitals in Sulaimania can decrease procrastination among nurses by participating in ergonomic enhancements such as safe patient-handling equipment, proper lighting, optimized workstation layouts, and adjustable chairs. By entrenching ergonomics into workplace policy, managers not only increase job satisfaction but also promote a culture of competence, which translates to healthier patient care and fewer medical faults. Nurse supervisors should participate ergonomic awareness into day-to-day work practices. For instance, confirming rest breaks in high-stress divisions, rotating staff to eschew fatigue, assigning tasks based on ergonomic suitability could minimalize procrastination.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHospitals should improve aimed training programs on ergonomic understanding and time management. Training could aid nurses recognize how poor ergonomics contributes to job dissatisfaction and procrastination. These training programs can be incorporated into orientation periods for new employee and strengthened through ongoing workshops. Meanwhile job satisfaction mediates the connection between ergonomics and procrastination, HR departments could highlight ergonomics in their nurse retention strategies. Ergonomically understanding environments not only lessen burnout but also increase morale, leading to greater retention rates and reduced recruitment costs in the Sulaimania healthcare sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are three theoretical implications emerging from the findings of our study. First, our study investigated the nurse’ perceptions of ergonomic practices. This is important because the overwhelming majority of the empirical studies have assessed ergonomics in different context (Andersen \u0026amp; Broberg,2021), our study attempts to fill the void in the health care management literature. As well as, as potently discussed by different recent studies, the extant literature lacks sufficient evidence showing the underlying mechanism through which employees' perceptions of ergonomics practices are linked to procrastination behavior. Nurse who perceives that the ergonomics initiatives critical for success and survival reciprocate with elevated levels of job satisfaction, and vanishing procrastination. In other words, they utilize cues to interpret dangerous and risks and develop attitudes and behaviors. Such satisfied employees also reciprocate with lower procrastination. These results suggest that job satisfaction has an intervening impact in the ergonomic / procrastination at work links.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe research’s cross-sectional nature limits the capability to draw causal implications between ergonomics, job satisfaction, and procrastination.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReliance on self-administered surveys may have presented reaction bias, for instance social desirability or recall bias.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe research was directed solely in Sulaimania hospitals, which might limit the generalizability of results to other regions or healthcare systems.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe restricted emphasis on nurses means that outcomes might not be fully appropriate to other hospital staff categories.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFuture Studies:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFuture study should adopt longitudinal designs to improve and generate causal relationships between ergonomics, satisfaction, and procrastination.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExecuting and assessing particular ergonomic interventions in controlled backgrounds could reinforce causal claims and practical guidelines.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIncreasing the study to comprise multiple cities or countries would provide a wider viewpoint and improve generalizability.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFuture work could investigate additional mediators or moderators, for instance stress levels, organizational culture, or leadership style, to increase deeper understandings into the mechanisms at play.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCombination of the ergonomic evaluations with psychological and organizational system of measurement might yield more comprehensive strategies for enhancing nurse performance and well-being.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI thank all nurses who participated in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study has only one other, who conducted the Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing- Original draft preparation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo external funding was received.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval and permission to conduct the study were obtained from the research ethical committees of Koya University, Kurdistan region of Iraq (reference number: KUHS25002). Every technique was carried out in accordance with the rules and standards suggested by the Helsinki Declaration. The current study, which focuses on nurses, is non-sensitive, without collecting personal or sensitive data. All participants provided informed consent prior to filling the questionnaire. Ensured that participation was voluntary and that the data collected were kept anonymous, complying with standard ethical practices for such research. The ethical committee consist of: Prof.Dr. Yasir Al-Jumailil, Ass. Prof. Dr. Rekurd Sarhang, and Dr. Hunar Omer\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColuci MZ, Alexandre NM. Psychometric properties evaluation of a new ergonomics-related job factors questionnaire developed for nursing workers. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1588\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers B, Buckheit K, Ostendorf J. Ergonomics and nursing in hospital environments. Workplace health Saf. 2013;61(10):429\u0026ndash;39. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/216507991306101003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/216507991306101003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKamala V, Yamini S, Gajanand MS. Ergonomic risks affecting the performance of work-from-home employees in IT industry: a comprehensive analysis. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2025;74(2):389\u0026ndash;408. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2023-0561\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJPPM-10-2023-0561\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson JR. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl Ergon. 2000;31(6):557\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinno N, Ammoun M, Ferdous Alam AS. The impact of ergonomics on employees\u0026rsquo; productivity in the architectural workplaces. Int J Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.E1157.0585C19\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.35940/ijeat.E1157.0585C19\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMokarami H, Eskandari S, Cousins R, Salesi M, Kazemi R, Razeghi M, Choobineh A. Development and validation of a Nurse Station Ergonomics Assessment (NSEA) tool. BMC Nurs. 2021;20(1):83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00600-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12912-021-00600-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLocke EA. What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human performance. 1969;4(4):309\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoharram-Nejadifard M, Saed O, Taheri S, Ahmadnia E. The effect of cognitive behavioural group therapy on the workplace and decisional procrastination of midwives: A randomized controlled trial. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2020;25(6):514\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_206_19\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_206_19\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMetin UB, Peeters MC, Taris TW. Correlates of procrastination and performance at work: The role of having good fit. J Prev Interv Community. 2018;46(3):228\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2018.1470187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10852352.2018.1470187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl-Sayed AA, Goda SF, Elbialy GG. Threats of nursing productivity in the digital era: investigating the interplay between smartphones addiction and procrastination behavior among nurses. BMC Nurs. 2024;23(1):577. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02218-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12912-024-02218-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAslan Y, \u0026Ouml;zdil Y. Examination of Healthcare Demand Procrastination Behaviors from a Societal Perspective. J Community Health Res. 2025 Jan;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18502/jchr.v14i2.17682\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18502/jchr.v14i2.17682\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMetin UB, Taris TW, Peeters MC. Measuring procrastination at work and its associated workplace aspects. Pers Indiv Differ. 2016;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. :254\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl-Sherbeeny AM, Al-Romeedy BS, Abd Elhady MH, Sheikhelsouk S, Alsetoohy O, Liu S, Khairy HA. How is job performance affected by ergonomics in the tourism and hospitality industry? Mediating roles of work engagement and talent retention. Sustainability. 2023;15(20):14947. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su152014947\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su152014947\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026ouml;nmez K, Yilmaz S, Karabay D. Effects of Psychosocial and Ergonomic Risk Perceptions in the Hospital Environment on Employee Health, Job Performance, and Absenteeism. InHealthcare 2025 Apr 26 (Vol. 13, No. 9, p. 1000). MDPI. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13091000\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/healthcare13091000\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThabit F, Almaamari Q, Abdulrab M, AlMamary YH, Alshammari H. The role of employee satisfaction as mediator in the relationship between rewards, work environment, and employee performance. Int J Intellect Hum Resource Manage (IJIHRM). 2022;3(01):42\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.46988/IJIHRM.03.01.2022.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.46988/IJIHRM.03.01.2022.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHen M, Goroshit M, Viengarten S. How decisional and general procrastination relate to procrastination at work: An investigation of office and non-office workers. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;172:110581. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110581\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2020.110581\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteel P, Taras D, Ponak A, Kammeyer-Mueller J. Self-regulation of slippery deadlines: the role of procrastination in work performance. Front Psychol. 2022;12:783789. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.783789\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.783789\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFaeq DK. Narcissistic leadership, workplace bullying, turnover intention, and creative performance: a study of nurses. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):898. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03479-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12912-025-03479-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXue H, Jing S, Song X, Zhang F, Liu X, Si X. Clinical nurses\u0026rsquo; work procrastination and smartphone addiction: A potential profile study. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1387288. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387288\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387288\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J managerial Psychol. 2007;22(3):309\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/02683940710733115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu J, Wu Y. The impact of enforced working from home on employee job satisfaction during COVID-19: An event system perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413207\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph182413207\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister RF, Heatherton TF. Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychol Inq. 1996;7(1):1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoğan SE, Altınbaş Y. The Relationship Between Ergonomics Level, Job And Life Satisfaction Of Healthcare Workers In Turkey. Ergonomi. 2024;7(3):227\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33439/ergonomi.1514689\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33439/ergonomi.1514689\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamos-Garc\u0026iacute;a VM, L\u0026oacute;pez-Leyva JA, Ramos-Garc\u0026iacute;a RI, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Ochoa JJ, Ochoa-V\u0026aacute;zquez I, Guerrero-Ortega P, Verdugo-Miranda R, Verdugo-Miranda S. Ergonomic factors that impact job satisfaction and occupational health during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic based on a structural equation model: A cross-sectional exploratory analysis of university workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):10714. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710714\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph191710714\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerawati H, Setyadi D, Michael M, Hidayati T. The effect of workload, supervisor, and coworker supports on job performance through job satisfaction. Int J Finance Econ Bus. 2023;2(1):13\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.56225/ijfeb.v2i1.168\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.56225/ijfeb.v2i1.168\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYiğit AB, Toker K. From exhaustion to insight: Uncovering the antecedents of work stress among healthcare professionals. WORK. 2025;80(2):750\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/10519815241289662\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10519815241289662\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerger Ploszaj HH, Rocha Fernandes BH, Camou Viacava JJ, Nassar Cardoso A. Understanding the associations between work from home, job satisfaction, work-life balance, stress, and gender in an organizational context of remote work. Discover Psychol. 2025;5(1):1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00342-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s44202-025-00342-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilva RM, Tamiozzo J, Beck CL, Pretto CR, Freitas ED, Camponogara S. Health symptoms and impacts of work on nursing professionals in a public hospital. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP. 2021;55:e20210072. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2021-0072\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2021-0072\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchubert K, Zeschke M, Zacher H. What to do when there is nothing to do? Toward a better understanding of idle time at work. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(14):11871\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02445-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-021-02445-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei LW. Deciphering the Dynamics: A Self-Report Correlational Investigation into Workplace Stress, Procrastination, and Job Satisfaction amongst Employees at Academic Institution. J China-ASEAN Stud. 2024;4(2):84\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpyridaki E, Galanakis M. Locus of control theory, productivity, job satisfaction, and procrastination: A systematic literature review in the organizational context of the 21st century. Psychology. 2022;12(12):965\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.12.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17265/2159-5542/2022.12.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSunarta S, Tjahjono HK, Muafi M, Prajogo W. Organizational Justice on Employee Procrastination: a Moderated-Mediation Model of Job Satisfaction and Psychological Contract Breach. Int J Prof Bus Review: Int J Prof Bus Rev. 2023;8(5):83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.1881\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i5.1881\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMusteață I, Holman AC. Factors of Workplace Procrastination: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences (2076\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;0760). 2025;14(6). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14060380\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/socsci14060380\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMosquera P, Soares ME, Dordio P. The thief of time and social sustainability: Analysis of a procrastination at work model. Revista de Administra\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de Empresas. 2022;62:e2021\u0026ndash;0313. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020220510\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S0034-759020220510\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeheshty SS, Torkan R. The Impact of Career Plateauing on Organizational Procrastination Mediated by Job Satisfaction in Cooperatives, Labor \u0026amp; Social Welfare Offices. J Industrial Sociol. 2025;1(1):111\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22034/jis.2025.721528\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22034/jis.2025.721528\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYildiz H, Yildiz B. Effects of positive and negative cyberloafing on safety behaviors and occupational incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Bayesian network analysis. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2025;31(1):248\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2024.2428569\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10803548.2024.2428569\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorabi M, Afshari A, Salimi R, Khazaei A. Leveling of triggers: a comprehensive summative content analysis of factors contributing to physical violence in emergency medical services. BMC Emerg Med. 2025;25(1):22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01181-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12873-025-01181-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXiaolong T, Gull N, Asghar M, Sarfraz M, Jianmin Z. Does perceived supervisor support reduce turnover intention? The mediating effects of work engagement among healthcare professionals. Work. 2023;74(3):1001\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210509\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3233/WOR-210509\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRahmila S, Denny HM, Dewi EK. Factors influencing perception of psychosocial risk among health workers at roemani muhammadiyah hospital. Jurnal Konseling dan Pendidikan. 2025;13(1):70\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29210/1139500\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29210/1139500\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Oacute;skarsd\u0026oacute;ttir HG, Oddsson GV, Sturluson J\u0026THORN;, S\u0026aelig;mundsson RJ. Towards a holistic framework of knowledge worker productivity. Administrative Sci. 2022;12(2):50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12020050\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/admsci12020050\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSupriyadi T, Sulistiasih S, Rahmi KH, Pramono B, Fahrudin A. The Impact Of Digital Fatigue On Employee Productivity And Well-Being: A Scoping Literature Review. Environ Social Psychol. 2025;10(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i2.3420\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.59429/esp.v10i2.3420\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVveinhardt J, Sroka W. What determines employee procrastination and multitasking in the workplace: personal qualities or mismanagement? J Bus Econ Manage (JBEM). 2022;23(3):532\u0026ndash;50. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.16178\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3846/jbem.2022.16178\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlobalisation CP, Cybal-Michalska A, Social, Ergonomics O. Vol. 152, 2024, 87\u0026ndash;102 AHFE. Social and Occupational Ergonomics. 2024 Jul 24:87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1005324\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.54941/ahfe1005324\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu H, Wang C, Lan Y, Wu X. Nurses\u0026rsquo; turnover intention, hope and career identity: the mediating role of job satisfaction. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00821-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12912-022-00821-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRizal S, Rasulong I, Wahjono SI. Leadership, environment, and lecturer performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction in Islamic higher education. Al-Tanzim: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam. 2024;8(4):1164-78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33650/al-tanzim.v8i4.9215\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33650/al-tanzim.v8i4.9215\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNanjundeswaraswamy TS. The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment. J Economic Administrative Sci. 2023;39(2):286\u0026ndash;304. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-02-2021-0029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JEAS-02-2021-0029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDodanwala TC, Santoso DS. The mediating role of job stress on the relationship between job satisfaction facets and turnover intention of the construction professionals. Eng Constr Architectural Manage. 2022;29(4):1777\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2020-1048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/ECAM-12-2020-1048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCayupe JC, Bernedo-Moreira DH, Morales-Garc\u0026iacute;a WC, Alcaraz FL, Pe\u0026ntilde;a KB, Saintila J, Flores-Paredes A. Self-efficacy, organizational commitment, workload as predictors of life satisfaction in elementary school teachers: the mediating role of job satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1066321. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1066321\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1066321\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCao TH, Chai DS, Nguyen LP, Nguyen HT, Han CS, Park S. Learning organization and employee performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction in the Vietnamese context. Learn Organ. 2025;32(7):53\u0026ndash;73. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2023-0177\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/TLO-09-2023-0177\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarsh BT, Moro FB, Smith MJ. The efficacy of workplace ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: a critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci. 2001;2(1):23\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14639220152644533\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14639220152644533\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHignett S, Wilson JR. The role of ergonomics in healthcare delivery. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci. 2004;5(3):271\u0026ndash;95. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1245446\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00140139.2016.1245446\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarsh B, Moro FB, Smith MJ. The efficacy of workplace ergonomic interventions to control musculoskeletal disorders: A critical analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. Theoretical Issues Ergon Sci. 2001;2(1):23\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/146392201300001074\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/146392201300001074\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobertson MM, Huang YH. Effect of a workplace design and training intervention on individual performance, group effectiveness and collaboration: The role of environmental control. Work. 2006;27(1):3\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2006-27102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3233/WOR-2006-27102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeiss DJ, Dawis RV, England GW, Lofquist LH. Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center; 1967.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuckman BW. The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 1991;51(2):473\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013164491512022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"ergonomics, job satisfaction, procrastination, hospitals, nurses, Kurdistan Region of Iraq","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7519724/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7519724/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground –\u003c/strong\u003e This study, grounded in Ergonomics Theory, Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, and Self-Regulation Theory, aims to build and propose a research model that investigates the ergonomics in hospitals in the Sulaimania city, Kurdistan region of Iraq. This empirical study aims to examine: (a) the effect of ergonomics on nurses’ job satisfaction and procrastination; (b) the effect of nurses’ job satisfaction on procrastination in the workplace; and (c) the mediating role of job satisfaction in these connections.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods – \u003c/strong\u003eA quantitative, cross-sectional, correlational research design was applied, utilizing a stratified random sample of 187 registered nurses from public, private hospitals. Data were gathered through a structured survey including validated scales for ergonomics, job satisfaction, and workplace procrastination. Reliability and validity were confirmed through Cronbach’s Alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). Mediation analysis was conducted using Hayes PROCESS Model 4 with bootstrapping to test indirect effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults –\u003c/strong\u003e The findings revealed that ergonomics had a significant positive influence on job satisfaction and that job satisfaction significantly reduced workplace procrastination. Ergonomics also had a significant total negative effect on procrastination. Mediation analysis confirmed a significant indirect effect of ergonomics on procrastination through job satisfaction, indicating partial mediation. All measurement constructs showed high reliability and attained convergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion –\u003c/strong\u003e The findings emphasize that enhancing ergonomic circumstances in nursing environments can improve job satisfaction and reduce procrastination, both directly and indirectly. The analysis highlights the significance of incorporating ergonomic interventions into hospital management policies to encourage nurse productivity, job satisfaction, and timely task completion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality/value\u003c/strong\u003e – Little is known about the consequences of ergonomics in the health care industry and the antecedent of procrastination at work place. The literature is also devoid of evidence concerning affective variables as the potential mediators relating ergonomics to procrastination. The study wants to fill in these gaps.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Ergonomics Influences Nurse Procrastination Through Job Satisfaction: Analysis of Hospitals in Sulaimania","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-17 11:25:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7519724/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"94197796-73bd-4b4d-8743-dc97f57b8055","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-13T05:55:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-17 11:25:31","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7519724","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7519724","identity":"rs-7519724","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}