New Zealand nurses' reports on hospital care: an international comparison.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the differences in health care systems, nursing shortages and their contributing factors and consequences no longer seem to be solely country-specific. The present study replicated a cross-national study of nurses' perceptions of staffing, work organisation and outcomes conducted in more than 700 hospitals in the United States, Canada, England, Scotland, and Germany. This paper compares the 2001 New Zealand findings with the findings of the five-country study. New Zealand nurses report similar shortcomings in their work environment as do the nurses in countries with distinctly different health care systems. While they report similar high levels of competence and good relations between doctors and nurses as the respondents in the other five countries, higher numbers of New Zealand nurses 30 years of age or younger report their intention to leave their current jobs. New Zealand nurses also report the highest levels of job related stress, high levels of job dissatisfaction, and more than half report receiving inadequate organisational support. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of recent changes in the hospital environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".