Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2026
Mapping the Drivers of Engagement in Mentorship in Nursing Clinical Practicums: A Network Analysis.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo map factors influencing nurses' engagement in clinical mentorship in nursing education and explore their interactions using network analysis.
designObservational cross-sectional study employing an online survey from July 2024 to May 2025.
methodsA total of 261 clinical mentors from healthcare institutions in Catalonia, Spain, completed the survey. Key variables included engagement in clinical mentorship (implication, motivation, satisfaction, compromise), perceived obstacles, ward manager support, emotional intelligence, emotional wellbeing, working and employment conditions. Data were analysed using regularized partial correlation network analyses. Centrality indices were calculated to determine the most influential variables within the network structure.
resultsMotivation, ward manager support, and emotional intelligence emerged as the most central, interconnected drivers of engagement. Motivation showed positive associations with commitment and implication in the mentoring role and a negative association with perceived obstacles. Ward manager support was linked to emotional wellbeing and peer support, reflecting the importance of psychosocial resources. Emotional intelligence appeared to support motivation, work control, and satisfaction with the mentoring role. In contrast, professional experience and employment conditions showed limited influence within the network.
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive understanding of how multiple factors interact to shape nurses' engagement in clinical mentorship. Motivation, ward manager support, and emotional intelligence represent key leverage points for strengthening mentorship practices. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Sustainable, high-quality clinical practicums require supportive work environments that recognize and foster mentors' intrinsic motivation, leadership support, and emotional skills. IMPACT: Clinical mentors are essential to student learning, and so is their engagement in the mentoring role. This study is the first to apply network analysis to this process, revealing that motivation, emotional intelligence, and ward manager support are central to engagement, while professional experience and employment conditions are less relevant. These findings can guide institutional strategies to promote supportive and nurturing clinical learning environments. REPORTING
methodThe manuscript is based on the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
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.