Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42454276›Full record

ArticleSAGE open nursing

Understanding Work Meaning: A Qualitative Comparative Study of Novice and Experienced Head Nurses in Hospital Leadership.

Marina Vexler, Ibrahim Abu Ras

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open nursing. 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

2 authors.

Marina VexlerClalit Health Services, Meir Medical Center, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4838-6403
Ibrahim Abu RasClalit Health Services, Meir Medical Center, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8955-0124

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to explore and compare the perceptions of novice and experienced head nurses in a hospital setting regarding the meaning of their work. Design: A qualitative comparative study was conducted face-to-face interviews. Methods: Thirty nurse managers (15 novice, 15 experienced) from an 800-bed hospital in Israel were selected via convenience sampling and participated in semi-structured interviews during January-March 2025. Data were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke's six-step method, focusing on participants' experiences and perspectives. Results: Four themes were identified related to the meaning of head nurses' work: (a) leadership and influence, (b) emotional commitment and sense of mission, (c) challenges and professional success, (d) balancing a managerial role with personal needs. Conclusion: This study revealed that novice and experienced head nurses attach different meanings to their work. Novice managers emphasized immediate impact, daily achievements, and personal development, while experienced managers focused on long-term vision, mentoring others, and sustaining a supportive unit culture. These differences suggest that leadership development should be tailored: for novice head nurses, training should strengthen confidence in decision-making, stress management, and short-term leadership skills; for experienced head nurses, support should focus on mentorship opportunities, succession planning, and strategies to maintain resilience over a prolonged career. Addressing these distinct needs can enhance effectiveness, job satisfaction, and the sustainability of nursing leadership across career stages. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Indexed as

frontline managershead nurseshospital settingleadershipmeaning in workqualitative study

Identifiers

PMID42454276
PMCPMC13364808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.