MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031550878 · doi:10.1108/01443330310790633

The effects of hospital restructuring that included layoffs on individual nurses who remained employed: a systematic review of impact

2003· review· en· W2031550878 on OpenAlexafffund
Greta G. Cummings, Carole A. Estabrooks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsRestructuringHealth careJob satisfactionTurnoverQuality (philosophy)PsychologyNursingEmpirical researchMedicineDemographic economicsBusinessSocial psychologyManagementEconomicsFinanceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study purpose was to assess the evidence on the effects of hospital restructuring that included layoffs, on nurses who remained employed, using a systematic review of the research literature to contribute to policy formation. Papers addressing research, hospital restructuring resulting in layoffs, effects on nurses, and a stated relationship between the independent and dependent variables were included. Data were extracted and the quality of each study was assessed. The final group of included studies had 22 empirical papers. The main effects were significant decreases in job satisfaction, professional efficacy, ability to provide quality care, physical and emotional health, and increases in turnover, and disruption to healthcare team relationships. Nurses with fewer years of experience or who experienced multiple episodes of restructuring experienced greater effects. Other findings remain inconclusive. Further research is required to determine if these effects are temporal or can be mitigated by individual or organizational strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations122
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social PolicySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207