Characteristics and influencing factors of perceived stress in nursing staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the perceived stress of nursing staff and the influence of alexithymia on it.Methods A total of 487 nurses were asked to finish the general information questionnaire,perceived stress scale(PSS) and Toronto alexithymia scale(TAS-20).Results The PSS of nursing staff was 25.72 ± 4.64.In perceived total stress and control feeling dimension nurses and nurse practitioners scored significantly higher than nurses-in-charge(F = 5.187,P 0.05;F = 4.008,P 0.05).In perceived total stress and control feeling and overload dimensions nurses aged under 30 scored significantly higher than those over the age of 30(F = 4.855,P 0.05;F = 4.255,P 0.05;F = 3.815,P 0.05).The forecast score was significantly higher in nurses of bachelor degree or above(F = 1.138,P 0.05).Difficulties identifying feelings and difficulties describing feelings,the factors of alexithymia,took important effects on the perceived stress.Conclusion The perceived stress of nursing staff is quite high,and more attention should be paid to nurses aged under 30 years,nurse practitioners and nurses of bachelor degree or above.Nursing administrators could reduce the perceived stress of nurses by improving the abilities to identify and describe feelings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".