Stress and ways of coping among nurse managers: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To appraise and synthesise empirical studies examining sources of occupational stress and ways of coping utilised by nurse managers when dealing with stress. BACKGROUND: The Nurse Manager's role is challenging yet draining and stressful and has adverse consequences on an individual's overall health and well-being, patients' outcomes and organisational productivity. Considerable research has been carried out; however, an updated and broader perspective on this critical organisational issue has not been performed. DESIGN: An integrative review. METHODS: Five databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS, PubMed, PsychINFO and MEDLINE) were searched to identify relevant articles. Search terms and MeSH terms included: "charge nurse," "coping," "coping strategy," "coping style," "psychological adaptation," "psychological stress," "stressors," "nurse manager" and "unit manager." Twenty-two articles were included in this review. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: moderate stress levels, common sources of stress, ways of coping and the impact of nurses' characteristics on stress. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse managers experienced moderate levels of stress mainly from heavy workloads, lack of resources and financial responsibilities. Enhancing social support and promoting job control were seen as important in reducing work stress and its related consequences. Additional studies using a more rigorous method and a larger sample size preferably in multicultural settings would shed more light on this topic. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Hospital and nurse administrators play an important role in promoting supportive structures for daily professional practice for nurse managers through staffing, organisational resources, support services, leadership and stress management training.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".