Work‐related empowerment of nurse managers: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study discusses how nurse managers' work-related empowerment has been investigated, in order to determine the level and relationships of empowerment among them. A systematic review was carried out, and a literature search was conducted with certain electronic databases for the period 1990-2009, using the main key words in various combinations. Only nine empirical studies in English were selected for review, in accordance with the requirements for the methodological quality and inclusion criteria. The most common type of study design was a descriptive survey (n = 5), and included various questionnaires, scales, and interviews. Nurse managers' structural, psychological, and work empowerment was found to be high or moderately high. The empowerment of nurse managers correlated positively with job satisfaction, perceived organizational support, role satisfaction, and managerial self-efficacy, and correlated negatively with emotional exhaustion and own health outcomes. Different theoretical approaches ensure a clear understanding of empowerment, but difficulties arise when the findings are synthesized across studies and settings because of the different theoretical frameworks used to conceptualize empowerment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".