Nurses’ perception of psychological empowerment and its relationship to work engagement and job insecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Psychological empowerment and work engagement are vital factors to consider when managing changes in workplace and enhancing both individual and overall organizational performance and increasing nurses’ job security. This study aimed to explore how nurses perceive their psychological empowerment, work engagement, and job insecurity. Further, to investigate whether nurses’ perception of psychological empowerment is related to their work engagement and job insecurity.Methods: A descriptive correlational research design was conducted using a convenience sample of nurses (N = 400) working in Damanhur educational hospital, Egypt. Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire, Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and Job Insecurity Inventory proved valid and reliable to measure study variables.Results: The present study revealed that nurses experienced high psychological empowerment and work engagement and perceive a lower level of job insecurity. A significant positive correlation was found between nurses’ perception of psychological empowerment and their work engagement. On the contrary, Job Insecurity was negatively correlated with each of psychological empowerment and work engagement (p < .001). In addition, psychological empowerment and work engagement can significantly predict 6.6%, and 9.3% of job insecurity respectively where the regression model is significant (p < .001).Conclusions: Nurses perceived their work environment as empowering and their work as challenging and stimulating, rending their competence, so they psychologically attached to and engaged in work and feel less job insecurity. Recommendations: Creating an atmosphere of trust and empowering nurses psychologically is inevitable. Hospital managers can adopt strategies that facilitate nurses’ engagement and reduce the levels of job insecurity. Positive empowering work climate, social support, and nurse managers leadership styles are factors that foster work engagement and job security.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".