Pain Management Practices by Nurses: Application of the Self-Efficacy Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain management is one of the most recurrent healthcare services provided by nurses. Based on the proposition of the self-efficacy theory, knowledge and attitudes can affect the nurses; confidence and their ability to manage the patients’ discomforts, which consequently affects their ability to apply appropriate pain management practices. The study examines the relationship between knowledge and attitudes towards distress management and the nurse’s individual capability to manage pain. The research is a transverse, correlational design study involving 266 registered nurses (n = 266). The nurses were requested to provide information on pain management via three instruments: attitude to, knowledge of and self-efficacy of pain management. Statistically, the nurses displayed an essential relationship between self-efficacy and attitude towards pain management (β = 0.502, t = 10.119, p< 0.001). Also, the study discovered a substantial connection between the nurses’ familiarity to pain management and their ability to manage it in patients’ pain (β = 0.368, t = 6.619, p < 0.001). This study recommends that future research be undertaken to investigate the mediating effects of self-efficacy on the knowledge and attitude towards agony management relationship and distress management practices. Additionally, in future, scholars can examine the direct relationship between the effectiveness of agony control and pain management routines of 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".