Emotional intelligence in professional nursing practice: A concept review using Rodgers's evolutionary analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge around emotional intelligence originated in the 1990s from research regarding thoughts, emotions and abilities. The concept of emotional intelligence has evolved over the last 25 years; however, the understanding and use is still unclear. Despite this, emotional intelligence has been a widely-considered concept within professions such as business, management, education, and within the last 10 years has gained traction within nursing practice. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this concept review is to clarify the understanding of the concept emotional intelligence, what attributes signify emotional intelligence, what are its antecedents, consequences, related terms and implications to advance nursing practice. METHOD: A computerized search was guided by Rodger's evolutional concept analysis. Data courses included: CINAHL, PyschINFO, Scopus, EMBASE and ProQuest, focusing on articles published in Canada and the United Stated during 1990-2017. RESULTS: A total of 23 articles from various bodies of disciplines were included in this integrative concept review. The analysis reveals that there are many inconsistencies regarding the description of emotional intelligence, however, four common attributes were discovered: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social/relationship management. These attributes facilitate the emotional well-being among advance practice nurses and enhances the ability to practice in a way that will benefit patients, families, colleagues and advance practice nurses as working professionals and as individuals. CONCLUSION: The integration of emotional intelligence is supported within several disciplines as there is consensus on the impact that emotional intelligence has on job satisfaction, stress level, burnout and helps to facilitate a positive environment. Explicit to advance practice nursing, emotional intelligence is a concept that may be central to nursing practice as it has the potential to impact the quality of patient care and outcomes, decision-making, critical thinking and overall the well-being of practicing 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".