Does empowerment matter? Perceptions of nursing leaders in Pakistan through qualitative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In a patriarchal society like Pakistan, where women are oppressed, women dominating professions like nursing is mostly seen as disempowered and requires considerable struggle to achieve its due recognition and respect. Aim: This study aims to explore the experiences of empowerment among the nursing leaders of Pakistan.Methods: This study uses a qualitative descriptive design. Total of twelve Pakistani Nursing leaders were interviewed using semi-structured interview guideline to explore their experiences of empowerment.Results: The study findings revealed five major categories which include: status of a nurse, nursing profession, power relationships, value-belief system, and leadership and management.Conclusions: Nurses’ empowerment is essential for enhancing the image and status of nursing profession in Pakistan. The study identified various personal and professional factors affecting nurses’ empowerment in the country and suggests various strategies, such as access to higher nursing education, development of enhanced nursing leadership competencies and understanding of power and politics of the organization, through which nurses can achieve empowerment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".