The Role of Hope and Self-efficacy on Nurses’ Subjective Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although subjective well-being is considered important for nurses, the relationship between hope, self-efficacy, and subjective well-being among nurses has rarely been assessed. This study purposes to explore the relationships between hope, self-efficacy, and subjective well-being. The analysis relies on data from 1757 female nurses in 3 hospitals in China. Nurses completed a demographic form, General Self-efficacy Scale, Hope Scale, General Well-Being Schedule. A mediate model of the hypothesized relationships between the constructs was tested. Significant direct relationships of hope, self-efficacy, and subjective well-being were displayed. Mediation analyses reveal that the impact of self-efficacy on subjective well-being is partially mediated by two components of hope, agency and pathways. Hope was shown to be a key mediator for the relationships between self-efficacy and subjective well-being. These findings advance current understandings on the hopeful thinking in nurses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".