MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899729789 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n3p7

Occupational stress and stressors experienced by the newly practicing nurses in intensive care units

2018· article· en· W2899729789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mona Abdel Wareth, Sameh Eltaybani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorMedicineMarital statusWorkloadIntensive careDescriptive statisticsNursingDescriptive researchInternshipCross-sectional studyFamily medicineClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Nurses working in critical care units face occupational stress particularly in the first six months of their practice; however, research on nurses’ perceived stress during this period is extremely limited. The aim of the study was to assess occupational stress and stressors experienced by the newly practicing nurses in intensive care units (ICUs).Methods: Design: A cross-sectional, descriptive, quantitative research design. Settings: Four ICUs in a university hospital in Alexandria governorate, Egypt. Participants: A convenient sample of 100 intern nurses who had their first clinical work experience in ICU during the internship. Method: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive, quantitative survey study conducted in four ICUs in Alexandria university hospital, Egypt. A questionnaire sheet consisting of two parts was used to collect data. Part one is the nursing stress scale and part two is the respondents’ socio-demographic and work-related data. Descriptive and bivariate statistical analyses were used to describe study variables and their associations.Results: All of the studied newly practicing nurses in ICUs experienced either moderate (43%) or high (57%) stress level. There are differences between the perceived stress reported by the studied nurses according to their characteristics (e.g., sex, marital status, having private work). These differences were not statistically significant. Death and dying, workload, and inadequate preparation are the top ranked stressors; average scores are 2.22, 2.20, and 2.13 respectively. In their first two months of experiences, nurses perceived inadequate preparation and death and dying as the highest stressors. This ranking differs among nurses with 3-4 months of experience and nurses with 5-6 months of experience.Conclusions and recommendations: Newly practicing nurses in ICUs face a significant level of stress. Death and dying, workload, and inadequate preparation are the top ranked stressors. Recommendations: Stress-management program must be initiated for new practicing nurses in ICU. Death and dying in ICU are highly needed topics to be embedded into nursing curriculum. Strategies to help graduate nurses cope must be implemented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207