Research on Nurses’ Psychological Empowerment: A Bibliometric Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological empowerment is a cultural, social, or psychological process that enhances individual control and autonomy over thoughts, emotions, and behaviors by developing attributes like self-identity, autonomy, and self-efficacy, which are integral to success in modern organizational management, particularly in service sectors like nursing. This study aimed to analyze the study focus, thematic trends, and evolution of studies on nurse psychological empowerment by using bibliometric analysis. The articles on nurses' psychological empowerment were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database from its inception to November 30, 2023. The R package “bibliometrix” was used to conduct the data analysis and graphical presentation. A total of 188 publications on nurses' psychological empowerment were included. Publications were mainly from the USA, Canada, and China. The most frequent keywords included “empowerment”, “psychological empowerment”, “nurses”, “nursing”, “job satisfaction”, “structural empowerment”, “burnout” and “leadership”, the most frequent topics were “power”, “settings”, “work satisfaction”, and “turnover”. This bibliometric analysis identified the research trend of nurses’ psychological empowerment in the past 25 years, and this subject has already become an active field of study in nursing research. In addition, nurse retention-related themes such as job satisfaction, and work environment have become hot topics in current research while structural equation model-based themes have been less studied.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.091 | 0.222 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it