MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898580730 · doi:10.1111/jocn.14702

Nurses’ integrity and coping strategies: An integrative review

2018· review· en· W2898580730 on OpenAlexaff
Sastrawan Sastrawan, Jennifer Newton, Gulzar Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOGrounded theoryNursingMEDLINECritical appraisalPsychologyCoping (psychology)ScopusTeamworkMedicineQualitative researchPsychotherapistSociologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Integrity is one of the core values in nursing that needs to be maintained by nurses in practice. However, the complexity in the nursing milieu can pose threats to integrity. An understanding of the common threats and coping strategies might assist nurses in preserving integrity in everyday practice. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review and synthesis the concept of integrity in nursing and identify common threats and coping strategies. METHODS: Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review method was implemented. A search was performed in Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Proquest Health and Medical electronic databases published in English between 2000-2017. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility for inclusion. Methodological appropriateness for the included studies was assessed using the critical appraisal skills programme. The constant comparative method of grounded theory was used to analyse and synthesise data from seven peer-reviewed articles. RESULTS: Two major conceptions of integrity were identified. These included the sense of wholeness with regard to personal-professional concerns and ethical-moral conducts. Five entities, self, patients, teamwork and work culture, the nature of work, and organisation, were identified as interweaving elements that may induce threats to integrity. When integrity is threatened, nurses use two key strategies to survive: adjusting and compensating. An emergent framework to facilitate understanding of nurses' threats to integrity is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: A threat to nurses' integrity takes form when there is an unmitigated gap between a nurse's expectation and reality. While the expectation comes from within the nurse, the reality materialises out of the complex interplays that occur in the healthcare workforce. Maintaining integrity demands a continual strive to balance personal expectations, professional concerns and nursing realities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207