Workplace Empowerment, Collaborative Work Relationships, and Job Strain in Nurse Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test a theoretical model linking nurse practitioners' (NPs) perceptions of workplace empowerment, collaboration with physicians and managers, and job strain. DATA SOURCES: A predictive, nonexperimental design was used to test a model in a sample of 63 acute care NPs and 54 primary care NPs working in Ontario, Canada. The Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire, the Collaborative Behaviour Scale--Parts A (physicians) and B (managers), and the Job Content Questionnaire were used to measure the major study variables. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the proposition that the extent to which NPs have access to information, support, resources, and opportunities in their work environment has an impact on the extent of collaboration with physicians and managers, and ultimately, the degree of job strain experienced in the work setting. Primary care NPs have significantly higher levels of workplace empowerment, collaboration with managers, and lower levels of job strain than acute care NPs. IMPLICATIONS: These findings will benefit NPs and nursing leaders in their efforts to create empowering work environments that enable NPs to provide excellent quality patient care and achieve organizational outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".