Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36211648›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Work climate in emergency health services during COVID-19 pandemic-An international multicenter study.

Justyna Kosydar-Bochenek, Sabina Krupa, Dorota Religa, Adriano Friganovic, Ber Oomen, Ged Williams, Kathleen M Vollman, Maria Isabelita C Rogado, Sandra Goldsworthy, Violeta Lopez and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

Justyna Kosydar-BochenekInstitute of Health Sciences, Medical College of Rzeszow University, Rzeszow, Poland.
Sabina KrupaInstitute of Health Sciences, Medical College of Rzeszow University, Rzeszow, Poland.
Dorota ReligaDivision for Clinical Geriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.
Adriano FriganovicDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ber OomenThe European Specialist Nurses Organisation (ESNO), HR Arnhem, Netherlands.
Ged WilliamsSchool of Nursing' Midwifery, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kathleen M VollmanAdvancing Nursing LLC, Adjunct Faculty Michigan State University, Northville, MI, United States.
Maria Isabelita C RogadoGraduate School of Nursing, Arellano University, Manila, Philippines.
Sandra GoldsworthyFaculty of Education and Professional Studies, School of Nursing, Nipissing University, North Bay, ON, Canada.
Violeta LopezSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Elena BrioniNephrology and Dialysis Unit, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Wioletta Medrzycka-DabrowskaDepartment of Anaesthesiology Nursing and Intensive Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A good working climate increases the chances of adequate care. The employees of Emergency in Hospitals are particularly exposed to work-related stress. Support from management is very important in order to avoid stressful situations and conflicts that are not conducive to good work organization. The aim of the study was to assess the work climate of Emergency Health Services during COVID-19 Pandemic using the Abridged Version of the Work Climate Scale in Emergency Health Services. Design: A prospective descriptive international study was conducted. Methods: The 24-item Abridged Version of the Work Climate Scale in Emergency Health Services was used for the study. The questionnaire was posted on the internet portal of scientific societies. In the study participated 217 women (74.5%) and 74 men (25.4%). The age of the respondents ranged from 23 to 60 years (SD = 8.62). Among the re-spondents, the largest group were Emergency technicians (85.57%), followed by nurses (9.62%), doctors (2.75%) and Service assistants (2.06%). The study was conducted in 14 countries. Results: The study of the climate at work shows that countries have different priorities at work, but not all of them. By answering the research questions one by one, we can say that the average climate score at work was 33.41 min 27.0 and max 36.0 (SD = 1.52). Conclusion: The working climate depends on many factors such as interpersonal relationships, remuneration or the will to achieve the same selector. In the absence of any of the elements, a proper working climate is not possible.

Indexed as

COVID-19Emergency Medical ServicesOccupational StressAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrganizational CulturePandemicsYoung AdultCOVID-19emergency health servicesmulticenterpandemic (COVID-19)work climate

Identifiers

PMID36211648
PMCPMC9533643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.