MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200004430 · doi:10.1177/00302228211062368

Death Anxiety and Related Factors Among Iranian Critical Care Nurses: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

2021· article· en· W4200004430 on OpenAlexaff
Samad Karkhah, Ali Akbar Jafari, Ezzat Paryad, Ehsan Kazemnejad Leyli, Mohammad Javad Ghazanfari, Joseph Osuji, Nazila Javadi‐Pashaki

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyMedicineLogistic regressionAnxietyNursingFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to investigate death anxiety (DA) and related factors among critical care nurses. Using a cross-sectional research design, 325 critical care nurses in eight hospitals in Iran enrolled in the study. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that deputy head nurse (OR = 18.299; CI: 1.764–189.817; p = .015), shift morning fixed (OR = 8.061; CI: 1.503–43.243; p = .015), surviving parents (OR = 3.281; CI: 1.072–10.037; p = .037), number of children (OR = 1.866; CI: 1.157–3.010; p = .011), years of working experience (OR = 1.143; CI: 1.048–1.246; p = .003), number of end-of-life patient care in the last 3 months (OR = .900; CI: .828–0.977; p = .012), age (OR = .809; CI: .732–.893; p < .001), CCU nurses (OR = .250; CI: .100–.628; p = .003), and mild stressful life events (SLEs) (OR = .167; CI: .046–.611; p = .007) were significantly related to high DA. Therefore, nurse managers and policymakers should pay special attention to these related factors in developing programs to maintain and promote the health of critical care nurses to improve the quality of nursing care.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207