Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36841780›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2023

From the first to the fourth critical period of COVID-19: what has changed in nursing practice environments in hospital settings?

Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes Ribeiro, Maria Filomena Cardoso, Letícia de Lima Trindade, Carla Gomes da Rocha, Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral Teles, Soraia Pereira, Vânia Coimbra, Marlene Patrícia Ribeiro, Ana Reis, Ana da Conceição Alves Faria and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Nurses' perspectives on nurses' work methods.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024
    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

14 authors.

Olga Maria Pimenta Lopes RibeiroNursing School of Porto (ESEP), CINTESIS@RISE, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal. olgaribeiro@esenf.pt.
Maria Filomena CardosoCentro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal.
Letícia de Lima TrindadeSanta Catarina State University and Regional Community University of Chapecó, Chapecó, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Carla Gomes da RochaInstitute of Health, School of Health Sciences, HES-SO Valais-Wallis CH, 1950, Sion, Switzerland.
Paulo João Figueiredo Cabral TelesSchool of Economics, University of Porto, LIAAD-INESC Porto LA, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal.
Soraia PereiraNorth Region Health Administration, 4000-447, Porto, Portugal.
Vânia CoimbraNorth Region Health Administration, 4000-447, Porto, Portugal.
Marlene Patrícia RibeiroCentro Hospitalar do Tâmega e Sousa, 4560-136, Penafiel, Portugal.
Ana ReisCentro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal.
Ana da Conceição Alves FariaNorth Region Health Administration, 4000-447, Porto, Portugal.
João Miguel Almeida Ventura da SilvaCentro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal.
Paula LeiteNorth Region Health Administration, 4000-447, Porto, Portugal.
Sónia BarrosCentro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal.
Clemente SousaNursing School of Porto (ESEP), CINTESIS@RISE, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the need to invest in nursing practice environments and health institutions were led to implement several changes. In this sense, this study aimed to analyze the impact of the changes that occurred in nursing practice  environments between the first and fourth critical periods of the pandemic.

methodsQuantitative, observational study, conducted in a University Hospital, with the participation of 713 registered nurses. Data were collected through a questionnaire with sociodemographic and professional characterization and the Scale for the Environments Evaluation of Professional Nursing Practice, applied at two different points in time: from 1 to 30 June 2020 and from 15 August to 15 September 2021. Data were processed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

resultsOverall, the pandemic had a positive impact on nursing practice environments. However, the Process component remained favourable to quality of care, while the Structure and Outcome components only moderately favourable. Nurses working in Medicine Department services showed lower scores in several dimensions of the Structure, Process and Outcome components. On the other hand, nurses working in areas caring for patients with COVID-19 showed higher scores in several dimensions of the Structure, Process and Outcome components.

conclusionsThe pandemic had a positive impact on various dimensions of nursing practice environments, which denotes that regardless of the adversities and moments of crisis that may arise, investment in work environments will have positive repercussions. However, more investment is needed in Medicine Department services, which have historically been characterised by high workloads and structural conditions that make it difficult to promote positive and sustainable workplaces.

Indexed as

Coronavirus infectionHospitalsPandemicProfessional nursing practiceWork environment

Identifiers

PMID36841780
PMCPMC9958319

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.