The influence of nursing leadership on nurse performance: a systematic literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to explore leadership factors that influence nurse performance and particularly, the role that nursing leadership behaviors play in nurses' perceptions of performance motivation. BACKGROUND: Nurse performance is vital to quality patient care outcomes and nursing leadership behaviors have been linked to nurse performance. EVALUATIONS: A review of research articles that examined the factors that nurses perceived as influencing their motivation and performance was conducted. Eight studies were included in the final analysis. KEY ISSUES: Nurses' perceptions of factors that affect their motivation and ability to perform were grouped into five categories using content analysis: autonomy, work relationships, resource accessibility, nurse factors, and leadership practices. Nursing leadership behaviors were found to influence both nurses' motivations directly and indirectly via other factors. CONCLUSION: The review suggests that nurse performance may be improved by addressing nurse autonomy, relationships among nurses, their colleagues and leaders, and resource accessibility. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nursing managers and leaders may enhance their nurses' performance by understanding and addressing the factors that affect their ability and motivation to perform.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it