Nurses’ perception about patient safety culture in neonatal intensive care units: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to (1) verify whether the translated short form of the Safety Attitude Questionnaire gives consistent results when used to evaluate safety culture in the neonatal intensive care units; and (2) describe nurses’ perception about patient safety culture, comparing between both governmental and private neonatal intensive care units’ nurses.Methods: Research design: An exploratory, descriptive, comparative. Subjects: A purposive sample of 190 neonatal nurses. Setting: Six, level IV neonatal intensive care units (three private and three governmental) of hospitals affiliated to Mansoura City, and Mansoura University and Ministry of Health and Population, Egypt. Data collection tools were consisted of the demographic characteristics questionnaire sheet and the self-administered 4-type Likert scale Safety Attitude Questionnaire sheet with its six dimensions after it was translated into Arabic language.Results: The respondents' nurses differed in their rating on the Safety Attitude Questionnaire items; as well the percentages of positive and negative responses were showed significant differences among the Safety Attitude Questionnaire dimensions, within and between nurses of the governmental and private neonatal intensive care units. In addition, Cronbach’s total coefficient alpha of the six dimensions is considered strong, with Alpha coefficients were 0.86.Conclusions: The study findings affirmed the psychometric properties of the Arabic form of Safety Attitude Questionnaire and it turned out to be a successful tool to assess safety culture perceptions among neonatal intensive care units' nurses. Moreover, linked with their workplaces, significant variations in the neonatal nurses' responses toward safety culture related dimensions were detected.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".