MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416801403 · doi:10.1111/nin.70070

The Sounds of Silence: Problematizing Voicelessness in Nursing Practice

2025· article· en· W4416801403 on OpenAlexaff
Lori Rietze, Mary Ellen Purkis, Kelli Stajduhar, Denise Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPsychological interventionObservational studyEthnographyOrganizational cultureHealth careAcute careNursing practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A positive healthcare environment and effective nurse recruitment are widely recognized as interconnected factors that improve outcomes for patients, families, and staff. Despite this, frontline nurses and their managers often have conflicting views on workplace issues. Although some hospitals have implemented "speak-up" initiatives, nurses in acute care settings still feel silenced, as interventions designed to improve workplace culture have had limited long-term impact. This underscores the need for a deeper understanding of how nurses are silenced. This qualitative, ethnographic study aimed to improve our understanding of how nurses are silenced in the acute care workplace. Through semi-structured interviews with registered nurses (n = 14) and administrators (n = 9), observational field notes (20 h), and documents (n = 8), we found that although nurses used various channels to voice concerns about patient safety, patient-centered care, and workplace health to their managers, they still felt ignored and unsupported, leading to feelings of vulnerability, anger, and abandonment. Administrators understood staff frustrations but felt powerless, seeing themselves as conduits for top-down directives rather than active participants in organizational initiatives. These findings offer crucial insights for clinicians, researchers, educators, and administrators aiming to create a more inclusive culture that prioritizes collaboration and high-quality care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing InquirySame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207