MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225266905 · doi:10.1177/00302228221095710

A Systematic Review of Death Anxiety and Related Factors Among Nurses

2022· review· en· W4225266905 on OpenAlexaff
Masoumeh Norouzi, Pooyan Ghorbani Vajargah, Atefeh Falakdami, Amirabbas Mollaei, Poorya Takasi, Mohammad Javad Ghazanfari, Sahar Miri, Nazila Javadi‐Pashaki, Joseph Osuji, Yasaman Soltani, Iraj Aghaei, Mahmood Moosazadeh, Amir Emami Zeydi, Samad Karkhah

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusDeath anxietyAnxietyBurnoutHardiness (plants)PsychologyCoping (psychology)Mental healthSocial supportClinical psychologyMEDLINENursingMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence regarding death anxiety (DA) and related factors among nurses. Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) databases were extensively searched using purpose-related keywords from the earliest to October 5, 2021. A total of 6819 nurses were included in 31 studies. The DA of nurses based on the Templer's Death Anxiety Scale was moderate. Factors such as personal anxiety, frequency and severity of job stress, burnout, dying patient avoidance behavior, euthanasia, sex, mental health status, social desirability, attitude toward the elderly, humor, social maturity, psychological hardiness, quality of life, lack of social activity, self-efficacy, coping with death, and life satisfaction were associated with nurses' DA. Therefore, nursing policymakers can promote nurses' health to improve the quality of nursing care by considering these related factors.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.348
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207