MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284958374 · doi:10.1177/17449871221080731

Nurses’ intention to stay in the work environment in acute healthcare: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4284958374 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Al Yahyaei, Alistair Hewison, Nikolaos Efstathiou, Debbie Carrick‐Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of research in nursing · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEHealth careStaffingNursingSystematic reviewMedicineWorkforceAcute carePsychologyPsychological interventionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With staffing shortages affecting increasing numbers of health services globally, and predictions that shortages will worsen in the future, there is broad consensus that leaders at all levels must do more to support and develop current employees. However, the wide range of attributes of a healthy work environment identified in the literature and the financial implications of creating healthy work environments make it challenging to determine which elements of the nursing work environment are the most important in terms of workforce sustainability. This is a significant gap in our knowledge, and there is no consensus in the literature regarding definition and explanation of work environment factors in a way that facilitates prioritisation. Objectives: The aim of this review was to synthesise and evaluate the evidence of the factors which may have an effect on intention to stay and role of the work environment in enhancing nurses' intention to stay in the work environment in acute healthcare. Design and methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed for relevant articles published between 1990 and December 2017 using the following electronic databases: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, ProQuest theses and dissertations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO. The reviewers independently screened the abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included papers using appropriate tools. Results: A total of 4968 studies were screened by title, abstract, and full-text review, and 29 studies were included in this review. The identified determinants of nurses' intention to stay were grouped into four main categories: individual indicators (personal and professional), organisation/profile, work environment, and patient-related. Several working environment variables identified in this review were significantly associated with the nurses' intention to stay. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of this review, the evidence indicates that attention to meso-level variables such as organisational characteristics and work environment is vital if the working environment is to improve and nurses' intention to stay is to increase. The multifaceted nature of the concept of intention to stay makes it difficult to present definitive conclusions based on the findings of this review. However, the identified theoretical models were instrumental in differentiating intention to stay from other concepts such as intention to leave, turnover and retention, theoretically, and operationally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations105
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of research in nursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207