ArticleHealth science reports2026
Measuring Nursing Productivity Based on a Review of the Literature: A Pilot Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
Background and Aims: One of the performance indicators of nurses is measuring their productivity. This is despite the fact that there is a serious weakness regarding the criteria to measure nursing productivity. Therefore, this study aimed to define the productivity indicators and to conduct a pilot test using the productivity measures in a hospital. Methods: This multi-phase study is conducted in three parts. In the first phase, a review is conducted to extract nurses' productivity measures. In the second phase, the measures are prioritized and evaluated using experts' opinions. Finally, a pilot study based on the list of productivity measures is implemented. For this reason, we conducted a time-motion study to analyze work efficiency in a pilot hospital. Results: In the systematic review phase, 11 articles were included in the study. They reported several measures like actual working hours, expected working hours, nurses' salaries and benefits, the number of patients under care, and relative value units (RVU) as indicators to measure nurses' productivity. Experts rated output/input, standard hours/actual hours, productive hours in patient day, and actual hours as more feasible, valid, and important indicators to measure productivity for nurses. Finally, in the third phase of this study, in order to measure actual working hours, nursing activities were extracted. Thirty-six nurses were observed and evaluated in three internal, surgical, and special care units. The mean monthly clinical time was highest in the Internal Medicine unit (116.17 h), followed by the Surgical unit (109.93 h), and the Intensive Care unit (106.83 h). The ICU had the highest standard, recorded (Timex-based), and paid hours. Finally, productivity was calculated by dividing clinical work hours by attendance hours in units. Performance ratio (productivity) was about 77%, 75%, and 68% in the internal medicine, surgical, and intensive care units, respectively. Conclusions: The productivity status of nurses was at a desirable level. The average productivity of nurses in the internal unit was higher than others. The productivity index can be the criterion of action in the field of performance-based payment.
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.