An integrative review of nursing leadership in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this integrative review were to describe leadership styles from the nursing literature in Saudi Arabia and to identify the current state of evidence about relationships between leadership styles and nurse, patient and organization outcomes in Saudi Arabia. DESIGN: Integrative review was used as a design for this study. METHODS: The following search terms were used with databases: 'Saudi Arabia', 'leadership theory*', 'leadership style*', 'leadership model*', 'management style' and 'nurse*'. Methodological quality was assessed using two different quality rating tools for quantitative and qualitative studies. Databases used for this review included Nursing & Allied Health Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. RESULTS: Nine manuscripts representing eight studies were included in this review. The papers reviewed included quantitative (n = 6), qualitative (n = 2) and mixed methods studies (n = 1). Results were grouped into different themes, identified as nursing leadership styles in Saudi Arabia, leadership styles and nurses' outcomes, and demographics and leadership styles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".