Exploring Determinants of Registered Nurses' Trust in their Managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nurse-manager relationship plays a key role in a nurseâs practice environment. A nurseâs trust in oneâs manager is the foundation for a supportive nurse-manager relationship and has crucial bearing upon the professional and personal lives of the nurse. However due to health care restructuring, nurses expressed little trust towards their leaders. To develop and implement strategies to help build healthy nurse-manager relationships, research is needed to more fully understand the factors that establish and enhance a nurseâs trust in oneâs manager. This study tested a theoretical model that examined potential individual, managerial, relational and environmental attributes that impact a nurseâs degree of managerial trust.\nEmploying a cross-sectional, descriptive design, a self-administered survey was completed by a random sample of 342 Registered Nurses employed in Ontario emergency departments. Structural equation modeling techniques tested and refined the hypothesized model. Final analysis showed adequate fit of data to theoretical model (Ï 2 = 78.86, df = 20, SRMR = .02, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .09). In the final model, a managerâs perceived ability, benevolence, integrity and procedural justice had a strong, direct impact on managerial trust. Trust in oneâs manager was indirectly influenced by procedural justice and ability as well as a managerâs facilitation of team work, communication accuracy, emotional availability and interaction frequency. Attributes of the individual RN, specifically job tenure and propensity to trust as well as self-determination, access to support and resources and span of control did not affect trust in oneâs manager. Study findings suggest that creation and preservation of a nurseâs managerial trust is a complex process affected by managerâs competence and character as well as a fair decision-making process. Education programs that contribute to a managerâs ability, benevolence, integrity and procedural justice may help build and sustain nursesâ trust and healthy nurse-manager relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".