ArticleNursing open2022
A cross-sectional study of COVID-19 pandemic-related organizational aspects in health care.
Article in Nursing open, 2022. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of reorganized versus unaltered cardiology departments during the COVID-19 era: A subanalysis of the COV-HF-SIRIO 6 study.Cardiology journal · 2023Article
- The COVID-19 pandemic impact on the Polish medical personnel work: a survey and in-depth interviews study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Hospital Staffing during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sweden.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A cross-sectional study of COVID-19 pandemic-related organizational aspects in health care.Nursing open · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study explores how healthcare professionals included in the COVID-19 contingency plan experienced organizational changes, and explores factors associated with the experiences. Additionally, the study aimed to identify learning points for future similar scenarios.
designA cross-sectional study.
methodsA questionnaire survey of healthcare professionals at three Danish hospitals, June 2020.
resultsA total of 1,448 healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire. Hereof, 813 (57%) were relocated to new settings/new jobs. The majority experienced that their relocation was totally (49%) or partially (31%) imposed, and 51% reported that the overall experience of the new job function was satisfactory. Type of profession and whether relocation to the new job function was imposed were the main variables associated with the overall experience of being part of the contingency plan. Suggestions for future scenarios included training adjusted to individual competencies, more targeted information, voluntariness with consideration of individual needs and clarification of expectations.
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.