Relationships of Work and Practice Environment to Professional Burnout
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has established clear links between nurses' experience of professional burnout and many qualities of work environments but more work is needed to clarify interrelationships among aspects of complex organizational settings. OBJECTIVE: To test a nursing worklife model that defined structured relationships among professional practice environment qualities and burnout. METHODS: Hospital-based nurses in Canada (N = 8,597) completed an assessment of worklife (Nursing Work Index, NWI) and burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Service Scale, MBI-HSS). RESULTS: A causal model was used to confirm the factor structure of the Professional Environment Scale (NWI-PES) on a subset of NWI items and the factor structure of the MBI-HSS. The analysis provided support for a structural model (nursing worklife model) linking the five worklife factors used to define a fundamental role for nursing leadership in determining the quality of worklife regarding policy involvement, staffing levels, support for a nursing model of care, and physician-nurse relationships. The analysis supported a direct path (negatively weighted) from staffing to emotional exhaustion and a direct path (positively weighted) from nursing model of care to personal accomplishment. DISCUSSION: Implications for refining a model of worklife are discussed. Implications for enhancing the quality of worklife and supporting engagement with work are considered.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it