Licenced practical nurses' perceptions of their work environments and their intention to stay: A cross‐sectional study of four practice settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand how licenced practical nurses perceive their work environments across different work settings and to analyse the association between these nurses' perceptions of their work environments and their intentions to stay employed at their current nursing unit. DESIGN: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurses in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: The study population consisted of 598 licenced practical nurses. Survey measures included demographic information, the Perceived Work Environment-Nursing Work Index, and an intention to stay scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated and mean scores for perceptions about the work environment were compared by work setting. The associations between perceived work environment and intention to stay were analysed using linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, licenced practical nurses rated their work environment as mixed, with statistically significantly lower scores in acute care settings. Nurse manager ability and adequate staffing and resources were the highest contributing variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".