Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31714503›Full record

ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2019

Caring efficacy: nurses' perceptions and relationships with work-related factors.

Cesar Ivan Aviles Gonzalez, Maura Galletta, Elsa Chessa, Paola Melis, Paolo Contu, Maria Francisca Jimenez Herrera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cesar Ivan Aviles Gonzalez. infermiere2010@gmail.com.
Maura Galletta
Elsa Chessa
Paola Melis
Paolo Contu
Maria Francisca Jimenez Herrera

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and aim of the workCaring nursing practice is central aspect of quality of services. It is important to assess nurses' caring experience in terms of perceived caring efficacy to make them aware of their outcomes and improve their strategies. The aims of the study was to analyze: (1) the caring efficacy level, (2) differences between the caring efficacy levels concerning  positive and negative work attitudes, (3) individual and organizational predictors of perceived caring efficacy.

methods200 nurses were recruited from a University Hospital in Southern Italy. A self-reported questionnaire was administered. T-test was performed to analyze differences between caring efficacy levels concerning outcomes variables. Regression analysis was carried out to examine how some work factors were related to perceived caring efficacy.

resultsParticipants referred high confidence to care (CC) for 55%, and low doubts and concerns (DC) for 72.9%. Nurses who had low DC had lower emotional exhaustion than nurses with moderate DC. Nurses with low DC had higher job satisfaction than nurses with high DC. Regarding CC levels, there were no differences between mean values for both attitudes at work. The emotional dissonance significantly predicted DC and CC. The supervisor support had a negative link with emotional dissonance, which in turn was negatively related to CC.

conclusionsEducation and training should be addressed to reduce doubts and concerns to care and improve the ability to manage emotions. A work environment that value caring and give support in managing emotions can reduce emotional dissonance and improve caring self-efficacy.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEmpathySelf EfficacyCross-Sectional StudiesEmotionsHumansNursing Staff, HospitalPerception

Identifiers

PMID31714503
PMCPMC7233628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.