Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42183657›Full record

ArticleNursing open2026

A Prescriptive Model for Protecting Nurses' Dignity and Safety: Understanding Coping Processes in the Face of Workplace Violence.

Zahra Ebrahimi Rigi, Parvin Mangolian Shahrbabaki, Fazlollah Ahmadi, Ali Ravari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing open, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Zahra Ebrahimi RigiDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iranshahr University of Medical Sciences, Iranshahr, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8321-122X
Parvin Mangolian ShahrbabakiNursing Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0539-5390
Fazlollah AhmadiDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1961-7735
Ali RavariDepartment of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geriatric Care Research Center, Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2569-6334

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aims to design a prescriptive model for protecting nurses' dignity and safety by systematically exploring their coping processes in response to workplace violence and examining how these empirically derived processes can inform the development of a conceptually grounded prescriptive framework.

designA qualitative, two-phase design was used. In Phase I, grounded theory based on Strauss and Corbin's approach explored nurses' coping processes and the mechanisms influencing dignity and safety in violent work settings. In Phase II, conceptual synthesis was performed using Walker and Avant's model development method to construct a prescriptive framework informed by and logically derived from the grounded findings.

methodsData were collected through semi-structured interviews with 39 nurses from hospitals in Kerman between June 2019 and December 2021. Given the extended data collection period, potential contextual influences, including the COVID-19 pandemic, were considered during data interpretation. Theoretical saturation was achieved after 35 interviews, with subsequent interviews confirming the stability and completeness of emerging categories.

findingsThe grounded theory study revealed that, in response to a main concern of perceived threats to dignity and job security within contextual conditions at multiple levels, nurses adopted action/interaction strategies (coping) involving adaptive, protective and meaning-oriented approaches that shaped their perceptions of dignity and safety. This coping process was influenced by intervening conditions, including facilitators such as accountable and reassuring colleagues and supportive institutions and barriers such as managerial neglect and structural deficiencies. These coping strategies led to consequences characterised by divergent outcomes: adaptive responses fostered emotional recovery, confidence and motivation, whereas maladaptive responses resulted in burnout, anxiety and ongoing psychological distress. Building on these findings, the prescriptive model comprises three interrelated conceptual components: (1) Context Familiarisation (systematic assessment of risks and situational conditions), (2) Professional and Organisational Support (conceptual mechanisms of empowerment and resource alignment) and (3) Continuous Evaluation and Reinforcement (iterative monitoring of outcomes and refinement of responses). These components reflect an integrated process linking awareness, empowerment and evaluation, with each component grounded in participants' reported coping experiences. Rather than representing an empirically validated intervention, this framework conceptually outlines organisational responsibilities across different levels, thereby strengthening the conceptual coherence of the model. This framework translates empirical insights into a structured yet adaptable form of guidance.

conclusionsThe proposed model offers a conceptually grounded framework that outlines key organisational mechanisms through which healthcare organisations can strengthen nurses' capacity to preserve dignity and safety in the face of workplace violence. However, the model remains interpretive and context-sensitive and has not undergone empirical validation. While the model provides theoretically informed and practice-oriented directions, further empirical testing is required. By providing a structured framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of comprehensive violence prevention systems, the model supports, rather than confirms, organisational action. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: By operationalising dignity and safety as explicit organisational outcomes, the model provides a practical framework for developing culturally sensitive, context-specific interventions. However, some strategies may require adaptation across different healthcare contexts to ensure broader applicability. Implementing these prescriptive strategies may contribute to enhancing nurses' well-being, retention and quality of patient care. REPORTING

methodThe study followed COREQ guidelines. IMPACTS: Despite ongoing prevention initiatives, workplace violence against nurses persists, undermining their dignity and safety. The proposed prescriptive model offers a structured pathway for translating nurses' coping experiences into conceptually grounded organisational and policy actions. For nursing managers, it emphasises the institutionalisation of supportive mechanisms that may enhance resilience and strengthen reporting practices. For policymakers, it highlights the need to embed dignity and safety indicators within national standards for workplace violence prevention. Interventions must remain context-sensitive-responsive to cultural norms, clinical environments and crisis conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic-and undergo continuous evaluation and refinement. Future research should empirically test and validate the model across diverse healthcare settings to strengthen its generalisability and practical utility. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalNursing Staff, HospitalRespectWorkplace ViolenceAdultCoping SkillsFemaleGrounded TheoryHumansMaleQualitative ResearchWorking ConditionsWorkplacecoping strategiesdignitygrounded theorymodelnursesworkplace violence

Identifiers

PMID42183657
PMCPMC13240077

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.