ArticleBMC nursing2025
Attribution, risk perception, and response to workplace violence: a scenario-based study of triage nurses.
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 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.
- Article
- From Situational Awareness to Structured Action: Developing a Nurse-Led Trigger-Based Pathway for Dynamic Violence Risk Management in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Grounded theory study on the psychological and behavioural processes of medical nurses in response to patient incivility.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Students' competencies in Problem-Based Learning influence evaluation of tutors.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Occupational exposure risk perception and its multilevel influencing factors among nurses in central sterile supply departments: a cross-sectional study based on the social ecological model.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorkplace violence (WPV) against nurses is a persistent challenge in emergency care, yet little is known about how frontline nurses cognitively interpret aggressive patient or family behavior and how these interpretations influence their risk perception and coping strategies. Drawing on attribution theory, we examined how nurses assign causality in different WPV scenarios and how these attributions relate to behavioral responses.
methodsA cross-sectional, scenario-based online survey was conducted among 230 emergency nurses using the Wenjuanxing platform. Six vignettes representing common WPV encounters were designed to systematically vary along three attributional dimensions: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. Participants identified the likely cause of the behavior (actor, situation, or stimulus), rated perceived risk, and indicated preferred coping strategies.
resultsAttribution patterns aligned with scenario cues, suggesting nurses were sensitive to contextual features when interpreting aggression. Situation attributions were consistently linked to lower perceived risk and fewer negative coping responses. In contrast, stimulus attributions, especially in personalized or ambiguous situations, corresponded with higher risk scores and increased likelihood of passive coping. Prior WPV experience was associated with greater use of actor attributions and heightened avoidant behavior, even in less threatening contexts.
conclusionNurses’ interpretations of patient aggression are shaped by both clinical context and personal experience, with meaningful consequences for their emotional responses and behavioral choices. Interventions such as simulation-based education and attributional reframing may enhance nurses’ cognitive flexibility and preparedness in managing WPV more effectively.
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.