ArticleBMC health services research2021
Work empowerment among cancer care professionals: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nursing strategies for severe poststroke fatigue: a case report of a structured, multidimensional intervention program.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Identifying Complex Scheduling Patterns Among Patients With Cancer With Transportation and Housing Needs: Feasibility Pilot Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Interprofessional education in cancer care - a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Graduating Nursing Students' Empowerment and Related Factors: Comparative Study in Six European Countries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a growing understanding that empowerment of interprofessional personnel is linked to job satisfaction levels and quality of care, but little is known about empowerment in the context of cancer care. This study describes how interprofessional cancer care personnel perceive their performance and factors that promote work empowerment.
methodsThis cross-sectional study enrolled 475 (45.2%) of the 1050 employees who work at a regional cancer centre. The participants used two self-administered questionnaires - the Performance of an Empowered Personnel (PEN) questionnaire and Work Empowerment Promoting Factors (WEP) questionnaire - to report perceptions of work empowerment. Both questionnaires' categories comprise moral principles, personal integrity, expertise, future orientation, and sociality. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, Versions 24 and 25.
resultsOverall, the performance of work empowerment was evaluated as being rather high (overall sum score mean: 4.05; range: 3.51-4.41; scale: 1-5). The category that rated highest was moral principles (4.41), and the one rated lowest was the social category (3.51). The factors that promoted work empowerment also ranked high (3.93; range: 3.55-4.08; scale: 1-5), with personal integrity (4.08) the highest and future orientation (3.55) the lowest. Performance and factors that promoted work empowerment correlated positively, moderately, and highly statistically significantly (r = 0.531; p < 0.001). Statistically significant associations also were found between empowered performance of personnel and empowerment promoting factors (sex, education, leadership position, belonging to an interprofessional team, and time elapsed since training in interprofessional cooperation).
conclusionThe personnel rated their performance and the factors perceived to promote work empowerment rather highly. Personal empowerment can be promoted through teamwork training and supportive management in interprofessional cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.