Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41362519›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

ICU Nurses' Views on the Potential Design and Anticipated Consequences of a Hypothetical Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program in Greece: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.

Dimitrios Kosmidis, Georgios Manomenidis, Chrysoula Zdagka, Dimitra Armeni, Stefanos Mavroudis, Sotiria Koutsouki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dimitrios KosmidisDepartment of Nursing, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Georgios ManomenidisDepartment of Nursing, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Chrysoula ZdagkaDepartment of Nursing, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Dimitra ArmeniDepartment of Nursing, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, GRC.
Stefanos MavroudisDepartment of Nursing, University of Thessaly, Larissa, GRC.
Sotiria KoutsoukiIntensive Care Unit, General Hospital of Kavala, Kavala, GRC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background In Greece, there is no pay-for-performance (P4P) program in ICUs. Evidence on ICU nurses' pre-implementation attitudes toward remuneration and hypothetical P4P design is scarce. Objective To elicit ICU nurses' hypothetical views on (a) the current remuneration system, (b) key design features of a potential ICU P4P scheme, and (c) anticipated consequences (benefits, risks, and unintended effects). Methods This is an exploratory qualitative study conducted using reflexive thematic analysis. ICU nurses meeting three eligibility criteria (bachelor's degree in nursing, ≥ three years' ICU experience, and written informed consent) were recruited via social media convenience sampling (June 2025). Nine nurses responded; seven were eligible and were interviewed via secure video conference (50-95 minutes; Greek). All participants worked in public hospitals across six Greek health regions. Two researchers independently double-coded all transcripts with third-party adjudication. A shared codebook, versioned analytic memos, and an audit trail supported rigor. Results Participants perceived pay as disproportionate to ICU intensity and workload and distinguished three facets of dissatisfaction: pay level (adequacy of the base salary), pay structure (seniority-graded pay misaligned with role/unit demands), and pay type (base-only salary lacking performance-linked elements). They expressed conditional openness to team-based P4P under safeguards: adequate staffing and information systems; a small set of clearly defined, locally feasible, nursing-sensitive indicators co-designed with the interprofessional ICU team (nurses and physicians); realistic, negotiated targets; transparent bonus criteria; and credible, transparent governance (independent auditing and clear accountability). Anticipated risks included gaming, crowding out, and interprofessional tension. Expected gains were modest and context-dependent rather than transformative. Conclusions Participants expressed conditional openness to team-based P4P only if specific safeguards are in place (adequate staffing and information systems; locally feasible, nursing-sensitive indicators co-designed with the ICU team; transparent governance and bonus criteria). These are baseline, pre-implementation attitudes from a small, self-selected, non-representative sample of ICU nurses with no P4P experience. They are subject to hypothetical response bias and the intention-behavior gap and should inform whether and how to pilot-test team-based incentives, rather than justify direct implementation or population-level claims.

Indexed as

incentivesintensive care unitsnursingpay-for-performancepre-implementationqualitative researchremuneration

Identifiers

PMID41362519
PMCPMC12682259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.