ArticleScientific reports2025
A multi-site cross-sectional study of work-related flow and affective domain in dialysis nurses.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Work-related flow and affective domain play a pivotal role in the work efficiency and job satisfaction of dialysis nurses. This study aimed to identify the key factors influencing dialysis nurses' work-related flow and affective domain, as well as to examine the correlation between these variables. A multi-site cross-sectional study design was employed in this research. A total of 502 dialysis nurses from 14 blood purification centers in Fujian Province, China, were surveyed between November 2022 and January 2023. Valid responses were obtained from 460 nurses, with their affective domain assessed using the Affective Domain Scale and work-related flow evaluated using the Work-Related Flow Inventory. Statistical analyses, including descriptive analysis, analysis of variance, t-tests, and correlation analysis, were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0. The total score for affective domain among the 460 dialysis nurses was 112.42 ± 20.69, with an average score of 4.50 ± 0.83 per item. The total score for work-related flow was 49.55 ± 12.36, with an average score of 3.81 ± 0.95 per item. Significant differences in work-related flow scores were observed with respect to age (P = 0.022), hospital level (P = 0.002), years of experience in blood purification (P = 0.008), and income (P = 0.006). Significant differences in affective domain scores were found for age (P = 0.001), hospital level (P < 0.001), number of dialysis machines (P = 0.039), number of nurses (P = 0.042), method of employment (P = 0.019), professional title (P = 0.007), functional role (P = 0.039), and income (P < 0.001). Pearson correlation analysis revealed a positive correlation between the total scores for work-related flow and affective domain among dialysis nurses (r = 0.660, P < 0.01). Dialysis nurses demonstrated a moderate level of work-related flow and a relatively high level of affective domain. Higher affective domain scores were associated with more robust work-related flow. Therefore, improving the affective domain of dialysis nurses may enhance their work engagement.
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.