Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To provide a conceptual update on change fatigue in nursing as it relates to rapid and continuous change implementation. This doctoral dissertation examined nurses' experiences of rapid and continuous organizational change, with a core component of the study examining the concept of change fatigue. BACKGROUND: Change fatigue is understood as the overwhelming feelings of stress, exhaustion and burnout fuelled by feelings of ambivalence and powerlessness associated with rapid and continuous change in the workplace. Change fatigue may cause workers to become withdrawn and greatly influences their decision to leave the workplace and even their profession. Little research to date has explored change fatigue in nurses. METHODS: Were qualitative in nature. DESIGN: A critical hermeneutic approach was used. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 Registered Nurses. Open-ended questions were used. Theoretical thematic analysis and inductive analysis of data were completed using Brown and Gilligan's voice-centred relational method. The study spanned from 2015 - 2018. RESULTS: Nurses did experience many of the core elements of change fatigue noted in the non-nursing literature, including exhaustion, apathy, powerlessness, and burnout. Two additional themes emerged pertaining to nurses' understandings of why they were experiencing change fatigue. These themes included the intensification of nursing work and repeated and ongoing self-sacrifice. CONCLUSION: Participants offered important insight into an emergent concept in the discipline of nursing. IMPACT: The negative experiences associated with change fatigue are important for administrators and other stakeholders to recognize and acknowledge, as they must work to alleviate change fatigue in their institutions to preserve the well-being of the nursing workforce. This knowledge is also important to nursing scholars, who may further research the topic and embed it into nursing curricula.
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 | 0.000 | 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".