MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158972662 · doi:10.1111/jocn.15809

A grounded theory of clinical nurses’ process of coping during COVID‐19

2021· article· en· W3158972662 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsGrounded theoryCoping (psychology)NursingWorkforceQualitative researchPsychologyStaffingTeamworkPandemicContext (archaeology)Symbolic interactionismMedicineSocial psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore clinical nurses' process of coping during COVID-19 and develop a grounded theory that can be used by leaders to support clinical nurses during a disaster. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has provoked widespread disruption to clinical nurses' work. It is important to understand clinical nurses' processes of coping during disasters to support the nursing workforce during events such as global pandemics. DESIGN: We employed the Corbin and Strauss variant of grounded theory methodology, informed by symbolic interactionism, and applied the EQUATOR guidelines for qualitative research publication (COREQ). METHODS: Data collection entailed semi-structured interviews with experienced clinical nurses (n =20) across diverse settings. We analysed data by identifying key points in the nurses' coping processes inductively building concepts around these points. RESULTS: The predictor of nurses' outcomes in this grounded theory was their confidence in their ability to cope during the pandemic. When nurses lacked confidence, they experienced working in the context of acute COVID-a state of chaos and anxiety, with negative consequences for nurses. However, when nurses were confident in their abilities to cope with the pandemic, they experienced working in the context of chronic COVID, a calmer state of acceptance. There were many workplace factors that influenced nurses' confidence, including adequacy of personal protective equipment, clear information and guidance, supportive leadership, teamwork and adequate staffing. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding clinical nurses' experience of coping during COVID-19 is essential to maintain the nursing workforce during similar disasters. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurse leaders can target areas that support nurses' confidence, such as adequate PPE and staffing. In turn, increased confidence enables clinical nurses to cope during disasters such as a global pandemic.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.392 · 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