The Characteristics of Working Overtime and Their Associations With Nurse and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Healthcare systems often use overtime to manage nursing shortage and to provide continuous and required nursing care. Studies have examined the impact of working overtime on both nurse and patient outcomes with conflicting results. Objectives: We aim to summarize existing evidence on the association between overtime work and nurse and patient outcomes; and to identify avenues for future research. Method: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Campbell, and Cochrane Library will be conducted to identify relevant studies on the association between overtime and nurse and patient outcomes. The period covered will be from April 2013 to May 2025. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, study selection, and data extraction. A qualitative synthesis of the available evidence will be performed. The results will be reported in tables. Discussion and Research Spin-offs: This systematic review will inform nursing research and practice and provide valuable recommendations that can be used to guide policies and managers’ decisions regarding working overtime in nursing settings.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".