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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.198
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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