What Really Motivates Iranian Nurses to Be Creative in Clinical Settings?: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Creativity and innovation are key elements for organization improvement, particularly in nursing, and for finding alternatives for solving nurses' occupational problems. Nurses' creativity is affected by motivation. Although, there are many possible sources of motivation, the Iranian nurses' creativity is seldom clarified, and the most important factors motivating nurses to be creative in clinical settings has rarely been addressed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore Iranian nurses' experiences regarding the most important factors that motivate their creativity in clinical settings. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using conventional content analysis approach. A purposive sample of sixteen nurses was recruited from two educational hospitals affiliated to Tehran and Jahrom Universities of Medical Sciences in Iran. Data were gathered through conducting face-to-face semi-structured interviews and were analyzed by qualitative content analysis approach. FINDINGS: Five main themes emerged from the data analysis, including: (a) Intrinsic motivators, (b) Extrinsic motivators, (c) Achievement motivators, (d) Relational or altruistic motivators, and (e) Spiritual motivators. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings indicated that nurses are creative and innovative individuals. So nurse managers and health policy makers should consider creativity as an integral part of all health and clinical strategies and policies. They should support creative and innovative efforts of nurses and provide a climate in which nurses engage in more creative and productive behaviors.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".