ArticleBMC nursing2025
Evaluation of occupational safety and influencing factors among nurses working in internal medicine clinics.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare workers, particularly nurses in internal medicine clinics, are exposed to specific occupational hazards such as infection risk, long working hours, and musculoskeletal problems. This study aims to evaluate the occupational safety of nurses working in internal medicine clinics and the factors influencing it.
methodsThe descriptive and analytical cross-sectional study was conducted with 300 nurses working in internal medicine clinics at a hospital in İzmir. The data were collected using a Participant Information Form and the Occupational Safety Scale (OSS) for Healthcare Personnel Working in Hospitals. The prediction of the OSS for Healthcare Workers in Hospitals Total Score among nurses, as well as the factors of Verbal Violence, Working Environment Equipment and Design, Quality of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and Equipment Used, were evaluated using multiple linear regression analysis.
resultsThe nurses' mean age was 29.6 ± 4.7 years. A total of 55.3% (n = 166) of the nurses reported either that they had not read the regulation on ensuring patient and worker safety in healthcare institutions or that they were unaware of the regulation itself (6%, n = 18). The variables of Working Environment Equipment and Design, Quality of PPE, and Equipment Used were found to be statistically significant, explaining 29.8% of the variance in the OSS for Healthcare Workers in Hospitals total scores (p < 0.05).
conclusionNurses perceived occupational health and safety as moderately adequate. Among the examined variables, Working Environment Equipment and Design, Quality of PPE, and Equipment Used were found to significantly influence nurses' occupational health and safety. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to improve clinical workspace design, ensure high-quality PPE, and optimize equipment use, thereby enhancing nurses' safety and well-being.
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.