Can We Predict Burnout among Student Nurses? An Exploration of the ICWR-1 Model of Individual Psychological Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of nursing work is demanding and can be stressful. Previous studies have shown a high rate of burnout among employed nurses. Recently, efforts have been made to understand the role of resilience in determining the psychological adjustment of employed nurses. A theoretical model of resilience was proposed recently that includes several constructs identified in the literature related to resilience and to psychological functioning. As nursing students are the future of the nursing workforce it is important to advance our understanding of the determinants of resilience in this population. Student nurses who had completed their final practicum were invited to participate in an online survey measuring the key constructs of the ICWR-1 model. 422 students from across Australia and Canada completed the survey between July 2014 and July 2015. As well as several key demographics, trait negative affect, mindfulness, self-efficacy, coping, resilience, and burnout were measured. We used structural equation modeling and found support for the major pathways of the model; namely that resilience had a significant influence on the relationship between mindfulness, self-efficacy and coping, and psychological adjustment (burnout scores). Furthermore, as predicted, Neuroticism moderated the relationship between coping and burnout. Results are discussed in terms of potential approaches to supporting nursing students who may be at risk of burnout.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".