MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943229870 · doi:10.18502/npt.v6i2.909

Spiritual distress among novice nurses during role transition at a university teaching hospital in Pakistan

2019· article· en· W2943229870 on OpenAlexaff
Nasreen Lalani

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Practice Today · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressJob satisfactionExistentialismGrounded theoryPsychologyNursingQuality (philosophy)MedicineSocial psychologyClinical psychologyQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background & Aim: Novice nurses often find it difficult to adjust in the workplace especially during the role transition phase and may find spiritual distress if they find their work meaningless and dissatisfying. The following paper aims to elaborate on the unique aspect of spiritual distress among novice nurses’ during their role transition phase and its impact on nurses’ retention, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Materials & Methods: Grounded theory approach was taken. A purposive sample of novice nurses who had graduated within the last six months were selected as participants. Individual in-depth interviews were taken. Data was analyzed using constant comparative analysis approach. Data was transcribed, translated, and various categories were formulated. Ethics was obtained from the University Research Ethics Board. Results: Most novice nurses were facing spiritual distress during their role transition phase. Spiritual distress was affecting their productivity, satisfaction and quality of work in the hospital. Conclusion: This study informs existential motives to be incorporated in occupational health policies within a hospital setting to smoothen role transition as well as to improve quality care and job satisfaction among novice 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Practice TodaySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207