The Nurse-Physician Relationship During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Shanghai, China: Cross-sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The nurse-physician relationship is important for the stability of collaboration. The COVID-19 pandemic has put unprecedented pressure on the health care system and has placed greater demands on nurse-physician collaboration. Nurses and physicians often struggle to share mutual responsibility and communicate effectively. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between nurses and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and construct a new model combining the attitude and behaviors of the 2 groups to assess various factors' impacts on job satisfaction and confrontational behavior. METHODS: We conducted this quantitative cross-sectional study to assess the relationship between nurses and physicians based on the attitudes and behaviors toward nurse-physician collaboration. We first investigated the satisfaction of nurses and physicians with their relationship and how they thought the COVID-19 pandemic had affected that relationship. We used an adapted and modified Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration questionnaire that consisted of 17 items under 5 dimensions. Structural equation modeling was used to assess the relationships between domains. Ordinal logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between different domains of the questionnaire and the satisfaction of the current nurse-physician relationship. RESULTS: We included a total of 176 nurses and 124 physicians in this study. Compared to 7.2% (9/124) of physicians, 22.7% (40/176) of nurses were dissatisfied with the current nurse-physician relationship. Most physicians (101/124, 81.5%) and nurses (131/176, 74.5%) agreed that the nurse-physician relationship had become better because of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the public had greater respect for them. However, significantly fewer nurses (59/176, 33.5% vs 79/124, 63.7%; P<.001) thought that physicians and nurses were treated with the same respect. Nurses scored significantly higher scores in caring versus curing (mean 16.27, SD 2.88 vs mean 17.43, SD 2.50; P<.001) and physician's authority (mean 8.72, SD 3.21 vs mean 7.24, SD 3.32; P<.001) subscales compared with physicians. The shared education and collaboration subscale had a significantly positive relationship with the nurse's autonomy subscale (standardized coefficient=0.98; P<.001). Logistic regression showed that 4 subscales (shared education and collaboration: P<.001; caring versus curing: P<.001; nurse's autonomy: P<.001; and confrontation: P=.01) were significantly associated with the level of satisfaction of the current nurse-physician relationship. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that nurses were more dissatisfied with the current nurse-physician relationship than physicians in Shanghai. Policy makers and managers in the medical and educational system should emphasize an interprofessional collaboration between nurses and physicians. Positive attitudes toward shared collaboration and responsibility may help to improve the relationship between the 2 parties.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».