ArticleBMC nursing2025
Gender differences in co-rumination and transition shock among nursing interns in China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status and factors influencing innovative behavior of pediatric nurses: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- When Cultural Resources Amplify Psychological Strain: Off-Work Music Listening, Homophily, and the Homesickness-Burnout Link Among Migrant Workers.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt has been reported that co-rumination and transition shocks significantly influence effective communication in clinical practice. However, previous research has not sufficiently explored the specific relationships between these two characteristics and their gender differences among nursing interns.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the states of co-rumination and transition shock among current nursing interns during clinical placements, as well as to determine whether gender differences affect these two traits and how exploiting such differences can improve nurses' co-rumination.
methodsA cross-sectional study design was adopted. We gathered data from a convenient sample of 505 nursing interns from a grade A tertiary hospital in Anhui, China. This study included Data collected using the Co-Rumination Questionnaire (CRQ-9) and Transition Shock Scale for Undergraduate Nursing Students (UNSTS). The data were analyzed using an independent samples t-test, Pearson correlation, and hierarchical multiple linear regression.
resultsThere was no significant difference in UNSTS scores between male and female nursing interns, but male nursing interns had lower CRQ-9 scores (P < 0.05). This study found that Transition Shock was the most critical factor influencing Co-Rumination variation for male and female nursing interns during clinical practice through hierarchical multiple regression analysis.
conclusionsGender differences are reflected not only in the level of co-rumination but also in the relationships between co-rumination and transition shock. Nursing educators should be aware of how gender differences can affect these two traits; this is particularly important for improving the mental health problems of nursing interns based on students' aptitudes.
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.