MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183715912 · doi:10.1002/nop2.1002

Cross‐national comparison of factors related to stressors, burnout and turnover among nurses in developed and developing countries

2021· article· en· W3183715912 on OpenAlexaffabout
Takashi Ohue, Supaporn Aryamuang, Laura Bourdeanu, Jean N. Church, Hamidah Hassan, Jaruwan Kownaklai, Arlene Pericak, Amorn Suwannimitr

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorBurnoutDeveloping countryTurnover intentionPsychologyTurnoverDemographic economicsEnvironmental healthClinical psychologyMedicineJob satisfactionSocial psychologyEconomic growthEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To examine factors of a hypothetical model related to stressors, burnout and turnover in nurses from developed and developing countries-Canada, Japan, the United States, Malaysia and Thailand. DESIGN: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. METHODS: Conducted between April 2016 and October 2017, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, Intention to Leave Scale, and Nursing Stress Scale collected data from acute care hospital nurses in Canada (n = 309), Japan (n = 319), Malaysia (n = 242), Thailand (n = 211) and the United States (n = 194). RESULTS: Compared to other countries, burnout "exhaustion" was the highest in Japan and "cynicism" and intention to leave the job were the highest in Malaysia. Thailand had lower burnouts and turnover than other countries and higher professional efficacy than Japan and Malaysia. In all countries, reducing stressors is important for reducing burnout and intention to leave jobs, especially as they relate to "lack of support."

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.403 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing OpenSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207