ArticleNursing research
Magnet Status in Nurse Practitioners' Care Assessments and Hospital Recommendations.
Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Impact of Magnet Recognition on Nurse Managers' Assessments of Work Environment, Quality, and Safety: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of nursing management · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNurse practitioners (NPs) are a growing segment of the acute care hospital workforce, yet little is known about how organizational factors, such as Magnet designation, influence their workplace experiences.
objectivesWe examined whether employment in a Magnet hospital was associated with NPs' strong recommendation of their hospital and whether this relationship was explained by NPs' assessments of care quality, patient safety, and care transitions.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 774 NPs across 425 US hospitals using the 2024 Penn Nurses4All Survey and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. The independent variable was employment in a Magnet hospital versus a non-Magnet hospital. The dependent variable was NPs' strong recommendation of their hospital to family and friends. Mediating variables included NPs' assessments of nursing care quality, patient safety, and confidence in patient care transitions. Mediation analysis using weighting estimators was conducted to adjust for confounding variables and to evaluate the extent to which the hypothesized mediators explained the relationship between Magnet status and hospital recommendation.
resultsNPs employed in Magnet hospitals were 15% more likely to strongly recommend their hospital compared with those in non-Magnet hospitals. The natural indirect associations through stronger quality of nursing care, patient safety grade, and confidence in care transitions accounted for ~13.3%, 26.6%, and 40% of the total association, respectively. The natural direct association remained positive and significant, suggesting that Magnet employment is associated with hospital recommendation among NPs independently of quality and safety assessments. DISCUSSION: NPs in Magnet hospitals are more likely to endorse their hospital, partially due to more favorable assessments of care quality and safety. This supports Magnet's aim to attract and retain registered nurses and suggests the benefit extends to NPs. Health care leaders should apply Magnet principles to strengthen NP engagement, development, and retention.
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.