The Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales: a valid measure of maternal satisfaction with inpatient postpartum nursing care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To test the validity of The Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales as measures of patient satisfaction with nursing care in an inpatient postpartum unit. BACKGROUND: The Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales (Experience of Nursing Care Scale and Satisfaction with Nursing Care Scale) were developed to measure the satisfaction of medical-surgical inpatients with nursing care. METHODS: The Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales were administered by interviewers to 189 postpartum women prior to hospital discharge. We tested the construct validity of the scales by making five a priori predictions: mothers who were more satisfied would be more likely to have one nurse caring for them and to recommend the postpartum unit to a friend. We also predicted that the Experience of Nursing Care and Satisfaction with Nursing Care Scales would be positively correlated with each other, with a global question about satisfaction with nursing care, and with a global question about satisfaction with overall postpartum stay. RESULTS: Four of the five a priori predictions were supported by the data. The mean Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scale scores of mothers who would recommend the unit to a friend were higher (more satisfied) than those who would not (P < 0.001). The Experience of Nursing Care Scale and Satisfaction with Nursing Care Scale were positively and significantly correlated with each other (r = 0.9, P < 0.001). There was a positive and significant correlation between the scales and global ratings of nursing care (Experience Scale r = 0.79, P < 0.001; Satisfaction Scale r = 0.82, P < 0.001) and overall postpartum stay (Experience Scale r = 0.64, P < 0.001; Satisfaction Scale r = 0.68, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales are valid measures of maternal satisfaction with inpatient postpartum nursing care.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".