MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417114300 · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-04185-4

Impact of a wellness charter on nursing practice for older adults in Tunisian healthcare centers: a cross-sectional quasi-experimental multicenter study

2025· article· en· W4417114300 on OpenAlexaff
Foued Trabelsi, Nabiha Missaoui, Saber Ben Abdeljalil, Hatem Laroussi, Kamel Ktari, Karim Aouam, Souhir Chelly, Mohamed Mahjoub, Iheb Bougmiza, Helmi Ben Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing researchConfidentialityCharterAutonomyHealth careDignityNursing managementIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)Nursing care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wellness, a comprehensive approach to patient care, aims to promote freedom, respect and listening to the patient needs in order to prevent abuse. No previous study have assessed the impact of an intervention promoting wellness in older patients within hospital settings. Furthermore, the predictors of key wellness indicators remain unexplored. This gap hinders efforts to target both organizational and individual-level determinants of quality care for older patients. This cross-sectional quasi-experimental multicenter study aimed to assess the effects of introducing a wellness charter intervention on nursing care practices and health outcomes among older patients in Tunisia. METHODS: A before/after study was conducted with a sample of 500 Tunisian nurses. Initially, a self-assessment was carried out using a validated French questionnaire covering eight wellness-related domains (25 items total). This was followed by a communication and awareness campaign explaining the charter, after which the self-assessment was repeated. The domains assessed included: respect for privacy, dignity, and confidentiality (5 items), pain management (2 items), patient/resident comfort (2 items), end-of-life care (3 items), communication (2 items), promotion of patient autonomy (4 items), preservation of personal dignity (3 items), and changes in service organization practices (4 items). To determine factors independently linked to wellness outcomes—specifically, items 21 (discussion of wellness during annual evaluations) and 22 (presence of wellness-related materials in the department)—both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: After the intervention, all eight domains showed statistically significant improvements: changes range from 8% to 46%. Factors significantly associated with the discussion of wellness during annual reviews included: maintaining confidentiality [odds-ratio (OR) = 2.28], avoiding professional discussions at the patient’s bedside [OR = 1.88], supporting end-of-life care and comfort [OR = 2.76], scheduling staff breaks in rotation [OR = 2.33], and monitoring patient call response times [OR = 2.43]. Factors significantly associated with the presence of wellness-related documents in the department included: consistent attention to pain management [OR = 6.73], collecting advance directives [OR = 2.28], encouraging patient mobility [OR = 0.14], rotating staff breaks [OR = 1.61], monitoring call response times [OR = 2.96], and offering flexible visiting hours [OR = 1.51]. CONCLUSION: Emphasizing staff training on patients’ rights and fostering an ethical nurse-patient relationship are crucial to improving wellness in care settings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NursingSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207