测量护士的组织幸福感:对现有工具的系统评价。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1177/01632787231207018
Giovanni Gioiello, Francesco Zaghini, Valerio Della Bella, Jacopo Fiorini, Alessandro Sili
{"title":"测量护士的组织幸福感:对现有工具的系统评价。","authors":"Giovanni Gioiello, Francesco Zaghini, Valerio Della Bella, Jacopo Fiorini, Alessandro Sili","doi":"10.1177/01632787231207018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to identify and compare instruments measuring nurses' organizational well-being, summarise the dimensions measured by these instruments, the statistical analysis performed for validity evidence and identify an instrument that comprehensively investigates nurses' organizational well-being. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA checklist were used as guidelines. The search was conducted on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Critical appraisal and data extraction were drawn on the COSMIN checklist. Dimensions were conceptually synthesized by the measurement concepts' similarity. Twenty-two articles were retrieved and they included 21 instruments that measured nurses' organizational well-being. The instruments vary by dimension number (range 2-19), items (range 12-118) and concept elicitation. A plurality of methodologies has been used in instrument development and assessments of evidence for validity. Only four instruments reported a concurrent criterion validity or a measurement comparison with an already tested-for-validity instrument. Similar dimensions were leadership and support, relationships and communication, work-family balance, work demands, violence, control and autonomy, satisfaction and motivation, work environment and resources, careers, and organizational policy. This review underlines the core areas of the instruments that measure nursing organizational well-being. It allows administrators and researchers to choose the appropriate instruments for monitoring this multidimensional concept.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Nurses' Organizational Well-Being: A Systematic Review of Available Instruments.\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Gioiello, Francesco Zaghini, Valerio Della Bella, Jacopo Fiorini, Alessandro Sili\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01632787231207018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to identify and compare instruments measuring nurses' organizational well-being, summarise the dimensions measured by these instruments, the statistical analysis performed for validity evidence and identify an instrument that comprehensively investigates nurses' organizational well-being. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA checklist were used as guidelines. The search was conducted on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Critical appraisal and data extraction were drawn on the COSMIN checklist. Dimensions were conceptually synthesized by the measurement concepts' similarity. Twenty-two articles were retrieved and they included 21 instruments that measured nurses' organizational well-being. The instruments vary by dimension number (range 2-19), items (range 12-118) and concept elicitation. A plurality of methodologies has been used in instrument development and assessments of evidence for validity. Only four instruments reported a concurrent criterion validity or a measurement comparison with an already tested-for-validity instrument. Similar dimensions were leadership and support, relationships and communication, work-family balance, work demands, violence, control and autonomy, satisfaction and motivation, work environment and resources, careers, and organizational policy. This review underlines the core areas of the instruments that measure nursing organizational well-being. It allows administrators and researchers to choose the appropriate instruments for monitoring this multidimensional concept.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation & the Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231207018\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231207018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述旨在确定和比较测量护士组织幸福感的工具,总结这些工具测量的维度,对有效性证据进行的统计分析,并确定一种全面调查护士组织幸福的工具。JBI证据综合手册和PRISMA检查表被用作指南。搜索在Medline、CINAHL、Cochrane Library和Scopus上进行。关键评估和数据提取是根据COSMIN检查表进行的。维度是通过测量概念的相似性在概念上合成的。检索到22篇文章,其中包括21种测量护士组织幸福感的工具。文书因维度数量(范围2-19)、项目(范围12-118)和概念启发而有所不同。在工具开发和有效性证据评估中使用了多种方法。只有四种仪器报告了同时的标准有效性或与已经测试的有效性仪器的测量比较。类似的维度包括领导和支持、关系和沟通、工作与家庭平衡、工作需求、暴力、控制和自主、满意度和动机、工作环境和资源、职业和组织政策。这篇综述强调了衡量护理组织幸福感的工具的核心领域。它允许管理人员和研究人员选择适当的工具来监测这一多维概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring Nurses' Organizational Well-Being: A Systematic Review of Available Instruments.

This systematic review aimed to identify and compare instruments measuring nurses' organizational well-being, summarise the dimensions measured by these instruments, the statistical analysis performed for validity evidence and identify an instrument that comprehensively investigates nurses' organizational well-being. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA checklist were used as guidelines. The search was conducted on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Critical appraisal and data extraction were drawn on the COSMIN checklist. Dimensions were conceptually synthesized by the measurement concepts' similarity. Twenty-two articles were retrieved and they included 21 instruments that measured nurses' organizational well-being. The instruments vary by dimension number (range 2-19), items (range 12-118) and concept elicitation. A plurality of methodologies has been used in instrument development and assessments of evidence for validity. Only four instruments reported a concurrent criterion validity or a measurement comparison with an already tested-for-validity instrument. Similar dimensions were leadership and support, relationships and communication, work-family balance, work demands, violence, control and autonomy, satisfaction and motivation, work environment and resources, careers, and organizational policy. This review underlines the core areas of the instruments that measure nursing organizational well-being. It allows administrators and researchers to choose the appropriate instruments for monitoring this multidimensional concept.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
The Use of Contribution Analysis in Evaluating Health Interventions: A Scoping Review. Impact of Multi-point Nursing Strategies Under a Clinical Problem-Solving Framework on Adverse Events Associated With Thyroid Nodule Resection. Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review. The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Self-Perceived Barriers for Physical Activity Questionnaire. Factors Associated With Agreement Between Parent and Childhood Cancer Survivor Reports on Child's Health Related Quality of Life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1