Observational studyJournal of nursing management2024
Measuring the Nursing Work Environment during Public Health Emergencies: Scale Adaptation and Validation.
Observational study in Journal of nursing management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The internal structure of transformational leadership as perceived by clinical nurses: a network analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with medical narrative competence of nurses: a qualitative study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Current status of nurses' public health emergency response capacity for emerging infectious disease: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Nursing Practice Environments in Hospitals: A Comparative Study between Portugal and Brazil.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Nurses' Personality Traits and Perceived Work Environments During Public Health Emergencies: Implications for Nursing Workforce Planning.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To develop a scale for measuring nurse's perceived work environment during the public health emergencies (PHEs) and assess its reliability and validity. Background: Although there is extensive research on instruments for measuring nursing work environments in regular healthcare settings, there is a lack of specific scales tailored to address the unique work conditions experienced by nurses during PHEs. Design: This study employed a cross-sectional design for psychometric evaluation and adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Methods: A self-report scale, the Chinese Nursing Work Environment Scale for Public Health Emergencies (C-NWE-PHE), was developed, integrating situational characteristics. Data on demographics, adapted scale scores, and subjective evaluations of nursing management performance were collected from 1156 nurses through online surveys conducted between January 2023 and March 2023. Confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlations, and Cronbach's alpha analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the scale. Results: The adapted C-NWE-PHE scale comprised 28 items organized into five subscales: Workforce and Deployment Support, Leadership and Emergency Management, Autonomy and Empowerment, Teamwork and Collaboration, and Logistics and Humanistic Care. Structural equation modelling showed satisfactory factor loadings for each subscale and a good model fit, confirming construct validity. The content validity and reliability of the total scale were confirmed. Conclusion: This study provides empirical evidence for understanding and assessing the nursing work environment during PHEs with a psychometrically sound scale.
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.