The role of working environment in nurses’ career advancement from nursing mangers’ perspectives: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nurses’ career advancement is a dynamic and unique concept which is explained in the context of working environment.Objective: This study aimed to explore the role of working environment in nurses’ career advancement from Nursing Mangers’ Perspectives.Methods: This qualitative study was conducted using content analysis method. Eighteen nursing managers from hospitals affiliated to Qazvin, Tehran, Iran and Shahid Beheshti Medical Sciences Universities participated in the study. A purposive sample of nursing mangers with rich experiences and maximum variations were selected and continued to reaching data saturation. The data were analyzed using content analysis method.Results: Participants believed that working environment have two major roles in nurses’ career advancement including motivating and restricting roles. According to nursing mangers, motivating working environment had facilitating role, while restricting working environment had blocking role in Iranian nurses’ career advancement.Conclusions: It seems that recognizing characteristics of working environment could assist nurses and nursing managers to develop conditions of working environment facilitating career advancement for nurses and decrease restrictive factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".