MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090050328 · doi:10.1177/0844562120957845

New Registered Nurse Transition to the Workforce and Intention to Leave: Testing a Theoretical Model

2020· article· en· W3090050328 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amy Hallaran, Dana Edge, Joan Almost, Deborah Tregunno

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceNursingStructural equation modelingQuality (philosophy)PsychologyTest (biology)Transition (genetics)MedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The transition of new nurses into practice has been identified as challenging, and new nurses report having intentions to leave (ITL) jobs. Concerns of ITL are worrisome for the nursing profession, especially when faced with the need to replace an aging nursing workforce and to maintain quality patient care. PURPOSE: Guided by components of Meleis et al.'s mid-range transition theory, the purpose of this study was to test a theoretical model linking transition and ITL, as well as the personal, community and societal conditions of transition. METHODS: = 217). Structural equation modeling was undertaken to test the model. RESULTS: The new nurses reported a relatively positive transition; yet, 44% of the respondents indicated leaving their first job, and 1% departed the nursing profession. A revised model of the constructs showed a more adequate fit with the data, but overall, the hypothesized model was not supported and methodological validity of tools questioned. From the modeling, lower role stress led to a positive transition. CONCLUSIONS: Given organizational and governmental investments in orientation and transition programs, challenges in measuring transition and ITL requires additional research. Our findings highlight the value of organizations supporting new nurses by reducing role stress through reasonable workloads and expectations, which in turn contributes to a positive transition.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207