Individual and unit-level predictors of promotive voice in nursing: a multilevel analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurses' promotive voice behavior, or the act of proactively suggesting improvements in the workplace, is crucial for enhancing healthcare services. Despite its importance, the factors that influence promotive voice, particularly within hierarchical environments, remain insufficiently explored. Understanding these factors is essential to creating work environments that encourage open communication and innovation among nursing staff. This study aimed to investigate the individual-level and unit-level factors that influence promotive voice among nurses, with a particular focus on the roles of age, unit tenure, power distance orientation, leadership style, and work climate. METHODS: This study, employing a cross-sectional and correlational design, analyzed data from 1,255 registered nurses with over six months of clinical experience, all of whom were involved in direct patient care across 145 nursing units. Multilevel analysis was employed to examine the relationships between individual-level characteristics (age, unit tenure, power distance orientation) and unit-level factors (leadership style, work climate) on promotive voice behavior. The analysis accounted for the hierarchical structure of the data, with nurses nested within nursing units. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that individual nurse's age (B = 0.04, 95% CI [0.03, 0.05]) and unit tenure (B = 0.01, 95% CI [0.01, 0.02]) were positively associated with promotive voice, while power distance orientation was negatively associated with promotive voice (B = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, -0.01]). At the unit level, inclusive leadership style (B = 0.23, 95% CI [0.08, 0.38]) and a positive speaking-up work climate (B = 0.34, 95% CI [0.11, 0.57]) were significantly related to higher levels of promotive voice. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the significant influence of both individual characteristics and unit-level factors on promotive voice among nurses. The findings suggest that fostering inclusive leadership and a supportive speaking-up climate, while addressing hierarchical barriers, can enhance the propensity of nurses to engage in promotive voice. This, in turn, has the potential to improve patient outcomes and enhance overall organizational performance by promoting a culture of open communication and continuous improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".