MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402092508 · doi:10.19044/esj.2024.v20n24p1

Impact of Nurse Residency Programs on Retention and Job Satisfaction: An Integrative Review

2024· article· en· W4402092508 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather M. McGregor, Morgan Scott, Robyn Gorham, Elena Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Scientific Journal ESJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionPsychologyNursingApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objects: Retention of new nurses is vital within the context of the nursing shortage Canada is currently facing. Nurse residency programs (NRP) need to be explored to better understand their role in combating the nursing shortage. The aim of this study is to explore current nurse residency programs and their impacts on retention and job satisfaction with the aim to inform development of similar programs in Canada. Methods: The study utilized Whittemore and Knafl’s integrative review methodology to review current literature on nurse residency programs in The United States of America with focuses on retention rates, job satisfaction and intent to leave. Overall, this article drew on seven distinct research studies. Findings: The literature review found that Nurse Residency Programs (NRP) can improve retention rates however, this may be due to contracts signed upon beginning of NRP. Job satisfaction for newly licensed registered nurses (NLRNs) participating in NRP also showed improvements but their impact on reducing turnover intention is unclear and needs further study. Conclusion: The impact of nurse residency programs on retention and job satisfaction has some positive effects, but the strength of this relationship remains unclear and would benefit from further research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Scientific Journal ESJSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207