Building empowering work environments that foster civility and organizational trust: testing an intervention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Creating supportive and empowering workplace conditions is important, not only because these conditions are related to improved nurse health and well-being but also because they are important for retaining top performing nurses. The current nursing shortage emphasizes the need to create such conditions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of a workplace intervention (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace [CREW]) on nurses' empowerment, experiences of supervisor and coworker incivility, and trust in nursing management. METHODS: Registered nurses (Time 1, n = 755; Time 2, n = 573) working in 41 units across five hospitals in two provinces completed measures of workplace empowerment, supervisor and coworker incivility, and trust in management before and after a 6-month intervention. Eight units participated in the intervention, and 33 units were control groups. Multilevel modeling was used to test the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: A significant interaction of time by intervention was found for the access to support and resources empowerment structures, total empowerment, supervisor incivility, and trust in management. DISCUSSION: Compared with the control group, nurses who experienced the intervention program reported significant improvements in empowerment, supervisor incivility, and trust in management. Despite methodological challenges experienced in this study, the CREW process appears to be a promising intervention approach to enhance quality of nursing work environments, which may contribute to the retention of the nursing workforce.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".