Nurses’ perceived work‐related empowerment in Lithuanian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: STUDY'S RATIONALE: Empowerment is widely used within the nursing literature in different countries, but perceived empowerment of Lithuanian nurses has not been studied before. There is a lack of research which has analysed nurses' views and feelings of empowerment. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the perception of Lithuanian nurses' work-related empowerment. The study describes how empowered the nurses felt in their work and how background factors were related to empowerment. ETHICAL ISSUES: The permission to use the questionnaire was given by copyright holders. The questionnaire was approved by the Ethics Committee. RESEARCH METHODS AND INSTRUMENT: The data were collected using a structured questionnaire comprised of two parts: the background questions and the Work Empowerment Questionnaire divided into three areas: verbal, behavioural, and outcome empowerment. The data were analysed statistically using SPSS, and Microsoft Excel programs. The descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and Spearman correlations were conducted. The sample consisted of 212 participants. RESULTS: The nurses experienced strong general empowerment (mean 7.9; max 10.0). They were more confident in their abilities to perform actions related to behavioural (mean 8.3) and verbal (mean 8.0) empowerment, and less confident in outcome (mean 7.3) empowerment. All aspects of empowerment were closely related to each other (p ≤ 0.001). Several significant relations were found between the aspects of empowerment and the background variables. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The Work Empowerment Questionnaire used in the study was originally developed in Canada. Differences in language, culture, health care organizations, and nursing practice may affect the validity of translated questionnaire in Baltic context. CONCLUSIONS: To prepare nurses for roles in which they may successfully exercise the power to create change, they need experience the process of empowerment during their education, and experience later supportive management.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".