ArticleJournal of nursing management2026
Demand-Matched Self-Efficacy and Perceived User Incivility in Healthcare: A Two-Wave Study and an Exploratory Training Intervention.
Article in Journal of nursing management, 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
Abstract
AIM(S): To examine which of three functionally distinct, demand-relevant self-efficacy beliefs showed the most consistent prospective association with baseline-adjusted changes in perceived user (i.e., patients, relatives and visitors) incivility, psychosomatic symptoms and job satisfaction among healthcare workers, and whether a targeted training programme can strengthen this resource in acute nursing settings.
designTwo linked studies: Study 1 used a two-wave change-over-time design, and Study 2 used an exploratory pre-post intervention design.
methodsIn Study 1, 74 healthcare workers completed measures at two time points over three months. Standardised residualised change analyses examined whether three baseline self-efficacy beliefs differing in their level of specificity and primary capability domain-self-efficacy in managing challenging user behaviour, regulatory emotional self-efficacy in managing negative emotions at work (RESE-W) and trauma-related coping self-efficacy (CSE)-predicted changes in perceived user incivility, psychosomatic symptoms and job satisfaction. In Study 2, 22 nurses from acute units participated in a unit-tailored training programme grounded in social cognitive theory. Pre-post analyses assessed changes in self-efficacy for managing challenging user behaviour and related communication competencies.
resultsIn Study 1, higher baseline self-efficacy in managing challenging user behaviour predicted more favourable changes in perceived user incivility, psychosomatic symptoms and job satisfaction. In contrast, CSE was associated only with psychosomatic symptoms, while RESE-W showed no significant associations. In Study 2, self-efficacy in managing challenging user behaviour showed a significant immediate pre-post increase following the intervention.
conclusionAmong the self-efficacy beliefs examined, self-efficacy in managing challenging user interactions showed the most consistent predictive pattern across the three outcomes. Preliminary findings indicate a short-term increase in this psychological resource following brief, context-sensitive training. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Assessing and supporting interaction-focused self-efficacy may complement broader organisational strategies for managing user incivility. Controlled studies are needed to determine whether targeted training produces durable improvements in occupational well-being or care quality and whether it can be scaled across settings. REPORTING
methodStudy 1 adhered to the STROBE guidelines; Study 2 adhered to the TREND and TIDieR guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public involvement.
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.