Global emotional and spiritual <scp>well‐being</scp> and resilience of Advanced Practice Nurses during the <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19 pandemic: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the emotional and spiritual well-being and resilience of a global sample of Advanced Practice Nurses. DESIGN: A web-based cross-sectional mixed methods study. Survey data were collected from Advanced Practice Nurses globally over a 2-month period ending on 31 August 2020. METHODS: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, FACIT-12 Spiritual Well-being Scale and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 were used to quantify emotional and spiritual well-being and resilience of Advanced Practice Nurses' globally. The survey was distributed internationally using snowball sampling via a secure platform (Qualtrics). Results were analysed using various bivariate tests for associations and group differences. RESULTS: Nine hundred and twenty-eight Advanced Practice Nurses from 53 countries participated in the study. Study participants reported meaningfully lower scores in resilience and emotional well-being compared with non-pandemic scores. Participants from countries with well-developed Advanced Practice Nurses roles reported lower resilience and well-being scores compared with those from countries where Advanced Practice Nurses roles are still being developed. Each scale revealed significant positive associations with the other scales. CONCLUSIONS: Emotional and spiritual well-being and resilience of Advance Practice Nurses has been significantly impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless of their work location, work hours, credential or demographics, the APNs in our study reported lower levels of resilience and mental well-being compared with typical scores on the instruments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".