ArticleBMC nursing2024
Comparative analysis of newly graduated nurse support through periods of turmoil: lessons learnt for building a future workforce for uncertain times.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Burnout During Residency: A Thematic Analysis of Stressors, Coping, and Organisational Challenges Among Nursing Residents.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare newly graduated nurse retention and employment experiences across two distinct graduate nurse programs through periods of health care delivery stability and instability.
backgroundA global nursing workforce shortage, coupled with increasing demands on health services, requires a specific focus on building capability and improved retention of nurses. The graduate nurse cohort is a critical supply source that potentially can be harnessed if their needs are better understood.
designA longitudinal (2015-2023) cross-sectional design was used to examine retention and experiences of newly graduated nurses from two ('traditional, unit-based' versus 'mobile') supported programs.
methodsRetention rates were obtained through analysis of employment databases. Descriptive data on impressions and experiences was collected at two time points via a short series of questions contained in a survey, from graduate nurses who remained in employment.
resultsRetention rates for graduate nurses were high (85%) during periods of stability, but even higher for the 'mobile' graduate nurse program. Both programs were adversely affected by instability however, the impact was substantial (around 50%) for the peak period of instability (2020) in the 'mobile' program. Survey data indicated that during the period of instability graduate nurses in traditional, unit-based programs had a more positive experience when compared with graduate nurses participating in the 'mobile' program; This contrasts with the period of stability, where graduate nurses in the 'mobile' program indicated more positive responses. DISCUSSION: Findings re-emphasise the importance of supportive structures for newly graduated nurses as effective in retaining these staff. However, for the first time, evidence is provided that 'mobility', diversity, and difference can be viewed positively by graduate nurses. Furthermore, it provides improved understanding about mechanisms, support and boundaries, all interrelating factors, in 'stretching' capacity of graduate nurses.
conclusionLongitudinal analysis of graduate nurses, participating in two diverse programs, through periods of stability and instability offers insights into their challenges and outcomes. These insights can directly inform targeted strategies for inclusion in supported programs that lead to improved graduate nurse retention and contribute to building an agile nursing workforce.
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.