Background Nurses working in intensive care units (ICUs) experience high work demands that pose significant challenges to maintaining work–life balance. Aim This study aimed to explore barriers to, and coping strategies for, achieving work–life balance among ICU nurses. Methods A sequential exploratory mixed methods design was employed. In Phase I, a descriptive exploratory qualitative approach was used, and in Phase II, a descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted. Integration of qualitative and quantitative findings was conducted during the interpretation stage. Results Both qualitative and quantitative findings consistently indicate that caregiving responsibilities substantially increase work–life conflict. Achieving work–life balance among nurses was particularly challenging, with most reporting difficulties managing professional and family responsibilities. These challenges led to stress and reduced personal time, whereas strong support systems, including workplace flexibility and family support, were essential for improving work–life balance. Significant associations with medium effect sizes were identified for age (p = 0.01), gender (p = 0.02), and income (p = 0.04), indicating that personal characteristics influence how ICU nurses manage work and family demands. Unresolved emotional stress directly affected work engagement and motivation. Organizational constraints emerged as key structural barriers to work–life balance, with financial factors further intensifying stress and limiting nurses’ ability to manage competing demands. Social and organizational support systems acted as protective factors, mitigating stress and enhancing nurses’ ability to sustain demanding ICU roles. Conclusion ICU nurses face substantial barriers to achieving work–life balance. Organizational support is crucial for promoting nurses’ well-being and sustaining quality patient care. The generalizability of these findings is limited due to the use of non-probability sampling and data collection from a single tertiary care center; therefore, results should be interpreted with caution when applied to other settings or populations.
Balakrishnan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.