Exploring the nature of workplace violence against healthcare staff: an online survey in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims Workplace violence against healthcare staff is global problem, with serious implications for the safety and wellbeing of healthcare professionals. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of workplace violence in hospital settings and the circumstances surrounding it, as well as staff members' responses, coping mechanisms and available support in Jordan. Methods This descriptive exploratory study used a retrospective cross-sectional design, collecting data from 651 healthcare workers with an online survey. Multiple-choice items were used to collect information on respondents' experience of workplace violence, including the nature of the incident, the impact and support received. 5-point Likert scales were used to measure respondents' emotional response to incidents and their level of satisfaction with how it was handled by managers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data, with SPSS version 25. Results Nearly half (n=316, 48.5%) of the 651 participants had experienced workplace violence in the previous 1 year, with verbal violence being the most common type. Perpetrators of violent incidents were most commonly patients' friends or relatives (32.3%) and patients themselves (31.4%). The most common reasons for not reporting the incident was the perception that doing so was unimportant or useless. Many felt dissatisfied with their organisation's handling of the incident (46.8%), with only 7.0% feeling very satisfied. Conclusions Violence against healthcare staff is unacceptably common, reflecting the impact of this global problem on hospitals in Jordan. This study also found negative perceptions of reporting incidents. This reflects the need for more effective violence prevention measures to ensure that healthcare staff are safe in the workplace and feel able to report incidents when they do occur. Implications for practice The high prevalence of workplace violence found in this study underline the need for zero-tolerance policies to ensure a safe workplace. This could include establishing effective and accessible reporting systems and implementing regular training on how to manage workplace conflicts and violence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".