Beyond generational differences: a literature review of the impact of relational diversity on nurses' attitudes and work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Based on a review of the empirical literature, we examine the influence of selected diversity attributes on nurses' work-related attitudes and behaviour. BACKGROUND: The nursing workforce has become increasingly heterogeneous in its age, educational attainment, and ethnicity/race distributions. There is considerable speculation, in the literature, that the work values of recent nursing graduates are discordant with more experienced nurses. RESULTS: A review of studies published between 1980 and 2009 in nursing, healthcare, psychology, and organizational behaviour led to the inclusion of 19 peer-reviewed research articles, from which our analyses are drawn. KEY ISSUES: The findings indicate that age diversity leads to negative behaviour toward others in the workgroup (e.g. poor collegial relationships) whereas perceived work-values diversity is negatively associated with individuals' own attitudes and behaviour toward their work as well as toward other members of their workgroup. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence about the attributes that most significantly influence nurses' attitudes and work; however, preliminary evidence supports the salience of work values. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Irrespective of the actual diversity within workgroups, how nurses see one another can have a significant impact on members of their workgroups and their functioning. Broader conceptualizations of diversity are necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".