Leader empowering behaviour: relationships with nurse and patient outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to test a model examining the impact of leader empowering behaviour on experienced nurses' self-efficacy, interprofessional collaboration, job turnover intentions and adverse patient outcomes. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: = 478). FINDINGS: = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.047; CFI = 0.965; TLI = 0.959; SRMR = 0.051. Indirect effects were observed between leader empowering behaviour and nurses' assessment of adverse events and leader empowering behaviour and nurses' job turnover intentions through interprofessional collaboration. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Leader empowering behaviour plays a role in creating collaborative conditions that support quality patient care and the retention of experienced nurses. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings will be of interest to academic and hospital leaders as they consider strategies to retain experienced nurses, such as nurse manager selection, development and performance management systems. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The influx of new graduate nurses to the nursing profession and changing models of care requires the retention of experienced nurses in the workforce. The findings suggest that leader empowering behaviour and interprofessional collaboration are important factors in supporting quality patient care and stabilizing the nursing workforce.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".