Comprehensive systematic review of evidence on developing and sustaining nursing leadership that fosters a healthy work environment in healthcare
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives The objective of this review was to appraise and synthesise the best available evidence on the feasibility, meaningfulness and effectiveness of nursing leadership attributes that contribute to the development and sustainability of nursing leadership to foster a healthy work environment. Inclusion criteria This review considered quantitative and qualitative research papers that addressed the feasibility, meaningfulness and effectiveness of developing and sustaining nursing leadership to foster a healthy work environment in healthcare. Papers of the highest level of evidence ratings were given priority. Participants of interest were leaders and those who were affected by leadership, specifically staff and patients. Interventions of interest including positive leadership attributes, as well as system and policy constructs, that impact on the development and sustainability of nursing leadership within the healthcare environment were considered in the review. Search strategy The search strategy sought to find both published and unpublished studies and papers, limited to the English language. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL was undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the paper. A second extensive search was then undertaken using all identified key words and index terms. Methodological quality Each paper was assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological quality prior to inclusion in the review using an appropriate critical appraisal instrument from the System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (SUMARI) package. Results A total of 48 papers, experimental, qualitative and textual in nature, were included in the review. The majority of papers were descriptive and examined the relationships between leadership styles and characteristics and particular outcomes, such as satisfaction. Because of the diverse nature of these papers meta-analysis of the results was not possible. For this reason, this section of the review was presented in narrative form. The qualitative and textual papers were analysed using The Joanna Briggs Institute-Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument and The Joanna Briggs Institute-Narrative, Opinion and Text Assessment and Review Instrument. The process of meta-synthesis embodied in these programs involves the aggregation or synthesis of findings or conclusions. Eight syntheses were derived with key themes related to collaboration, education, emotional intelligence, organisational climate, professional development, positive behaviours and qualities and the need for a supportive environment. Conclusion A combination of leadership styles and characteristics was found to contribute to the development and sustainability of a healthy work environment. The current work conducted in this area provides a solid foundation for future directions in research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».