MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582404388

Violence toward nurses at emergency rooms (ERs) of hospitals of

2013· article· en· W2582404388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
zahra Moshtaq Eshgh, Maryam Saeedi, Zhila Abed Saeedi, Hamid Alavi Majd, Zahra Abedi

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in nursing and midwifery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonverbal communicationCronbach's alphaMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionTest (biology)Verbal abuseWorkplace violencePsychologyWorkloadOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologyMedical emergencyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractBackground and AimER nurses are at risk of violence due to the nature of their job and confrontation with a variety ofpatients as well as heavy workload. This can, in turn, leads to decreased quality of care. Thisdescriptive study was conducted to identify prevalence and causes of violence toward nurses at ERsof hospitals affiliated with Medical Universities in Tehran.Methods100 nurses with at least 1 year continuous experience at ER were included in the study. Data werecollected by a questionnaire. The questionnaire contained items including demographics, frequencyand characteristics of violence at work (physical, verbal, nonverbal) and the factors involved.Content and test-retest as well as internal consistency (Cronbach’sU) methods were used forValidity and reliability of the questionnaire respectively. Data were analyzed by version 16 of SPSSpackage.FindingsThe most frequent type of violence was verbal (87%). The frequencies of nonverbal and physicalviolence were 70% and 28% respectively. The most common type of verbal violence was yelling(84%) and, in physical violence, it was throwing objects (33%). In nonverbal violence, insulting andthreatening look (64%) and hitting on the table were very common. Verbal (48.2%) and nonverbal(65.8%) violence was committed mostly over the past month of the study and at nights. The subjects(38%) experienced verbal violence up to 5 times. The most frequent cause of violence (77%) wasthe lack of control over entrance of patients’ relatives. chi test showed a significant relationshipbetween physical violence and night shifts (P 16 Feb 2010-Lanza ML et al (2006). Non physical violence: a risk factor for physical violence in health care settings. A A O H N:Official Journal The of American Association of Occupational Health Nurses .54 (9) 397-402-Lemelin L et al (2004). Workplace violence reported by Canadian nurses. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 41(3)152-167.-Pich J et al (2010) Patient-related violence against emergency department nurses. Nursing and Health Sciences 12(2),268–274 hs-525 2274.-Talas M S Kocaoz S Akguc S (2011). A Survey of violence against staff working in the emergency department inAnkara, Turkey. Asian Nursing Research. 5 (4)197-203.-Uzun O (2003). Perceptions and experiences of nurses in Turkey about verbal abuse in clinical settings. Journal ofNursing Scholarship. 35 (2) 81-85.-Yaghmaei F (2007). [Measuring behavior in research by valid and reliable instruments]. 1st edition Tehran: ShaheedBeheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services publication. (Persian).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in nursing and midwiferySame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207