Authentic leadership in healthcare: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review peer-reviewed original research articles on authentic leadership (AL) in health care to identify potential research gaps and present recommendations for future research. The objectives are to examine and map evidence of the main characteristics, research themes and methodologies in the studies. AL is a leader's non-authoritarian, ethical and transparent behaviour pattern. Design/methodology/approach A scoping review with thematic analysis was conducted. A three-step search strategy was used with database and manual searches. The included studies were composed of English language peer-reviewed original research articles referring to both AL and health care. Findings In total, 29 studies were included. The studies favoured Canadian nurses in acute care hospitals. AL was understood as its original definition. The review identified four research themes: well-being at work, patient care quality, work environment and AL promotion. Quantitative research methodology with the authentic leadership questionnaire and cross-sectional design were prevalent. Research limitations/implications Future research needs more variation in research themes, study populations, settings, organisations, work sectors, geographical origins and theory perspectives. Different research methodologies, such as qualitative and mixed methods research and longitudinal designs, should be used more. Originality/value This is presumably the first literature review to map the research on AL in health care.
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 | 0.019 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".