The Influence of Nursing Unit Empowerment and Social Capital on Unit Effectiveness and Nurse Perceptions of Patient Care Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study tested a multilevel model examining the effects of work-unit structural empowerment and social capital on perceptions of unit effectiveness and nurses' ratings of patient care quality. BACKGROUND: Structural empowerment and social capital are valuable resources for staff nurses that promote work effectiveness and high-quality patient care. No studies have examined social capital in nursing at the group level. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 525 nurses in 49 nursing units in 25 acute care hospitals in Ontario was conducted to test the hypothesized multilevel model using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Both unit-level structural empowerment and social capital had significant effects on unit effectiveness (β = .05 and β = .29, P < .05, respectively). Unit-level predictors explained 87.5% of level 2 variance in individual nurses' ratings of patient care quality. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a better understanding of how unit-level structural empowerment and social capital affect both unit- and individual-level 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".