MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411868543 · doi:10.1111/jocn.70007

Prevalence and Determinants of Workplace Violence Against Nurses in the Italian Home Care Settings: A Cross‐Sectional Multicentre Study

2025· article· en· W4411868543 on OpenAlexaff
Manuele Cesare, Marco Di Nitto, Paolo Iovino, Valeria Caponnetto, Yari Longobucco, Ilaria Marcomini, Francesco Zaghini, Rosaria Alvaro, Alessandra Burgio, Giancarlo Cicolini, Loreto Lancia, Paolo Landa, Duilio Fiorenzo Manara, Beatrice Mazzoleni, Laura Rasero, Gennaro Rocco, Maurizio Zega, Loredana Sasso, Annamaria Bagnasco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecTransport Canada
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Firenze
KeywordsWorkloadMedicineWorkplace violenceBurnoutCross-sectional studyStaffingOvertimeLogistic regressionNursingOccupational safety and healthOdds ratioHealth careSuicide preventionPoison controlFamily medicineEnvironmental healthClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To describe the prevalence and determinants of workplace violence against nurses in the Italian home care setting. DESIGN: Secondary cross-sectional analysis of data from the multicentre study AIDOMUS-IT. METHODS: Nurses employed in home care services provided by Italian Local Health Authorities were interviewed using a variety of instruments. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was performed to model the risk of workplace violence against nurses in the last 12 months. Variables related to violence were selected among sociodemographic characteristics (such as age and gender), work-related factors (including years of experience, team composition, overtime working, previous experience in mental health care, burnout) and organisational elements (including leadership and support, workload, staffing and resources adequacy, and time to reach the patients' homes). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were used to present the results. RESULTS: A total of 3949 nurses participated in the study and 20.49% of them reported to have experienced an episode of violence in the last 12 months. Determinants of higher risk of violence episodes were younger age (aOR = 1.02, p = 0.002), higher workload (aOR = 1.01, p = 0.002), working in a multiprofessional team (aOR = 1.24, p = 0.018), perception of inadequate managerial leadership and support (aOR = 1.38, p = 0.003), and higher burnout levels (aOR = 1.01, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of workplace violence against Italian home care nurses is high. Several modifiable determinants were found to be associated with a higher risk of violence, which can potentially be mitigated with tailored interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Effective preventive strategies must be developed to lessen workplace violence against nurses in the home care setting. These strategies should focus on strengthening nursing managers' leadership and support skills, enhancing team-building strategies, avoiding inadequate workload, monitoring nurses' burnout, estimating optimum staffing levels, and assigning advanced-career nurses to home care services. These measures are imperative to guarantee the quality and safety of home care organisations and to attain favourable outcomes in the provision of care. IMPACT: This study aimed to explore the prevalence and determinants of workplace violence against nurses in the Italian home care settings. We found that out of the 3949 nurses surveyed, 20% of the sample reported one episode of violence during the last 12 months. Determinants of this violence included younger age, higher workload and burnout, being in a multiprofessional team, and perception of lack of leadership and support by the nurse manager. The results of this study can be used to tailor interventions aimed at mitigating the risk factors of violence, particularly those that can be modified (e.g., workload, burnout, and leadership). REPORTING METHOD: The study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.412 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207