ArticlePloS one2026
The interaction between rumination and job embeddedness among trainee nurses during internship: A multicenter longitudinal study.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the developmental trajectory of rumination and job embeddedness among college trainee nurses and examine the predictive relationship between them, with the aim of providing a theoretical basis for improving trainee nurses' job embeddedness.
designA longitudinal study.
methodsA total of 405 nursing interns from 12 colleges and universities in China were selected as the survey subjects. They were tracked using the Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS) and the Global Job Embeddedness Items (GJEI) at three time points: T1 (initial stage of internship, 1-2 months), T2 (middle stage of internship, 5-6 months), and T3 (completion of internship, 9-10 months). A cross-lagged model was constructed to analyze the causal relationship between the two variables.
resultsA total of 382 valid questionnaires were collected, yielding an effective response rate of 94.32%. In analyzing the overall trend from T1 to T3, rumination significantly decreased from a baseline of (44.79 ± 5.28) to (41.61 ± 5.27) (F = 47.360, P < 0.001). Concurrently, the score of job embeddedness increased significantly from (22.42 ± 4.89) to (25.48 ± 4.60) (F = 25.690, P < 0.001). The level of rumination at a previous time point negatively predicted job embeddedness at the subsequent point (β = -0.403, P < 0.01; β = -0.411, P < 0.001), and job embeddedness at a previous time point negatively predicted rumination at the next point on average (β = -0.397, P < 0.001; β = -0.385, P < 0.001). At the initial level, rumination can predict job embeddedness negatively (β = 0.433, P = 0.002), the initial level of rumination can predict the development speed of job embeddedness negatively (β = 0.395, P = 0.005), and the development speed of rumination can positively predict the development speed of job embeddedness (β = 0.450, P < 0.001).
conclusionpractice trainee nurses rumination is on the decline, job embeddedness is on the rise. Educators and clinical instructors should assess and monitor rumination levels in trainee nurses and strategically leverage the dynamic relationship between rumination and job embeddedness to enhance the latter during clinical training.
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.