Influences of context, process and individual differences on nurses’ readiness for change to Magnet status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to test hypotheses associated with a model which explains individuals' readiness in early stages of a change. BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve the quality of nursing care, hospitals in the United States of America seek to obtain Magnet recognition. While it is commonly known that Magnet hospitals provide higher quality patient care, little is known about the variability in nurses' attitudes and behaviour within Magnet hospitals. METHOD: We collected data in 2006 from 310 Registered Nurses to investigate the factors that influence their willingness to embrace the changes necessary for the high levels of excellence accompanying Magnet status. Hierarchical linear modelling was used because the data were multi-level. RESULTS: Both change-specific context, such as a culture of research exhibited by the manager, and formal education of the nurse moderated the positive influences of the organization's procedural justice actions. Specifically, procedural justice was stronger when the nurse manager demonstrated a culture of research, and negative effects of low justice were mitigated when nurses had a higher level of formal education. CONCLUSION: Preparing managers beforehand to appreciate and adopt new behaviours associated with a forthcoming organizational change should enhance the success of change practices as new changes are initiated. Moreover, education that exposes employees to the pending realities of their industry, such as nursing research, can play an important role in the development of positive beliefs about changes facing their organizations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".