Job satisfaction—Global Job Satisfaction Scale (GJSS)
Conditions Of Work-Effectiveness II (CWEQ-II)
Nurse-assessed adverse patient outcomes
The quality of the articles included in this review was checked by the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument Critical Appraisal Checklist. The Joanna Briggs checklist evaluates the methodological quality of a study while determining the possibility of an indication of bias in its conduct, design, and analysis. As can be seen from Table 3 , there were 21 cross-sectional studies (1–11, 13–19, 21–23), 1 descriptive–correlational study (12), and 1 qualitative study (20).
All the included studies largely adhered to the Joanna Briggs criteria, providing comprehensive and detailed descriptions of their respective methodologies and procedures Table 4 , Table 5 and Table 6 . However, it was observed that two of the cross-sectional studies did not explicitly outline any specific strategies to address the stated confounding factors. Nevertheless, as Dekkers et al. (2019) argue, confounding is not dichotomous but rather a continuum where varying degrees of confounding influence can exist [ 28 ]. Furthermore, in accordance with the Joanna Briggs guidelines, the qualitative study failed to disclose the researcher’s cultural or theoretical standpoint, as well as the potential influence of the researcher on the research process. It is worth noting that such omissions are common in qualitative studies, where the focus is on understanding the subjectivity of the participants and allowing their perspectives to emerge naturally.
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies.
Authors and Year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boamah, S., Spence Laschinger, H., Wong, C., and Clarke, S. (2018) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Asif, M., Jameel, A., Hussain, A., Hwang, J., and Sahito, N. (2019) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Lappalainen, M., Härkänen, M., and Kvist, T. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Seljemo, C., Viksveen, P., and Ree, E. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Ree, E. and Wiig, S. (2019) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Lievens and Vlerick, P. (2014) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Asiri, S., Rohrer, W., Al-Surimi, K., Da’ar, O., and Ahmed, A. (2016) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Y Tekingündüz, S., Yıldız, E., and İnci, R. (2021) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Choi, S., Goh, C., Adam, M., and Tan, O. (2016) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Khan, B., Quinn Griffin, M., and Fitzpatrick, J. (2018) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Weng, R., Huang, C., Chen, L., and Chang, L. (2015) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
El-Demerdash, A. M. S., Elhosany, W. A., and Hefny, M. A. M (2018) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Brewer, C., Kovner, C., Djukic, M., Fatehi, F., Greene, W., Chacko, T., and Yang, Y. (2016) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Xie, Y. et al. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Boamah, S.A. (2022) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Anselmann, V. and Mulder, R.H. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Yilmaz, A. and Duygulu, S. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Wagner, A. et al. (2019) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
ALFadhalah, T. and Elamir, H. (2021) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Liukka, M., Hupli, M., and Turunen, H. (2017) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Lin, PY., MacLennan, S., and Hunt, N (2015) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Risk of Bias Assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Study Results.
Authors and Year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liukka, M., Hupli, M., and Turunen, H. (2017) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | No | No | √ | √ | √ |
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data Results.
Authors and Year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kvist, T., Mäntynen, R., Turunen, H., Partanen, P., Miettinen, M., Wolf, G., and Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K. (2013) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Two major themes emerged, effectively addressing the research questions. Within each theme, several categories were identified, shedding light on the multifaceted nature of the topic under investigation. The themes and their corresponding categories were as follows.
Theme 1: Staff nurses’ work environment:
Theme 2: Patients’ outcomes:
Various studies that investigated the mechanism of TFL detected its strong influence on employee attitudes and behaviors in nursing. Nurses’ work attitudes are reflected in their levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment [ 29 , 30 ]. It was clear from the literature that TFL frequently positively influenced nurses’ work environment by indirectly increasing job satisfaction [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Employees’ positive perception of jobs and organization is revealed through job satisfaction [ 30 ]. Researchers link TFL and empowerment to the establishment of self-determination and competency, which is proven to impact job satisfaction, suggesting the direct relationship between nurse empowerment and nurse job satisfaction, enhancing the quality of the nurses’ work environment [ 9 , 32 ].
There is also evidence to construct a strong link between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Interestingly, the statistics showed that nursing staff committed to their organization with a strong sense of loyalty and dependence also had higher levels of job satisfaction [ 29 , 33 ]. Further, higher levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction were also associated with increased health status in the nurses [ 33 ]. More specifically, TFL was related to more excellent supervisor support, increasing job satisfaction among the nurses, and resulting in more significant organizational commitment [ 29 ]. In a study examining the effectiveness of TFL in the environment of elderly care, TFL was found to effectively strengthen the nursing staff’s sense of belonging to the organization, reducing their burnout. The clan culture established through TFL effectively influenced organizational commitment and job satisfaction, where the atmosphere of a home culture created within their work environment promoted the intrinsic values of nursing staff while improving cohesion between the nurses and the quality of care [ 33 ]. However, TFL was found to have a direct positive effect on organizational commitment [ 33 , 35 ].
Studies also found that TFL can reduce the nurses’ intent to leave the job, which is closely related to the previous category, as job dissatisfaction can be the primary precursor of nurses’ intent to leave [ 29 ]. The literature generally highlights that the TFL style shapes employees’ perceptions and feelings around their nursing managers and affects their desire and obligation to maintain the intent to stay in their organization [ 36 ]. A recent cross-sectional study examining 645 nurses working during the COVID-19 pandemic found that a supportive workplace culture can construct an adaptive mechanism through which transformational leaders can improve retention [ 37 ]. Additionally, the literature found TFL to decrease emotional exhaustion amongst nurses by encouraging a spiritual climate, indicating that a positive spiritual climate facilitated through TFL can reduce burnout and decrease nursing staff’s intent to leave [ 31 ]. However, there was insufficient evidence proving a direct correlation between TFL and staff nurses’ decision to stay or leave their job [ 33 , 35 ], but it was suggested that TFL has the potential (but not the primary factor) to slow down attrition and retain nurses by improving job satisfaction and organizational commitment, creating a positive work environment and increasing nurses’ probability of staying [ 35 ]. TFL seems to not act directly on job satisfaction or intent to stay but rather create a multifaceted positive work environment leading to a quality nursing environment. Consequently, it was reported that TFL indirectly influenced willingness to stay by positively influencing staff organizational commitment and job satisfaction [ 29 , 33 , 35 ].
Literature highlights that the TFL style within nursing can give staff nurses increased autonomy through empowerment strategies and meaningful participation in decision-making [ 30 , 31 , 36 ]. In turn, TFL-facilitated empowerment has been proven to increase employee commitment within their units by delegating power to nurses, leading to increased authority within their work environment [ 30 , 36 ]. Empowerment through decision-making involvement via removing formal organizational barriers has been found to reduce powerlessness in the nurse work environment, reducing job burnout and increasing job satisfaction [ 30 ]. RN-MD collaboration and teamwork within and across units were thought to be necessary for the nurse’s autonomy [ 38 ]. Further, the literature relates to the concept that a well-functioning patient safety climate requires nurses with autonomy to deal with problems regarding patient safety while proposing specific solutions and getting support and encouragement from organizations to facilitate patient safety-based innovations [ 39 ].
TFL and transactional leadership behaviors were found to affect empowerment amongst the nursing staff positively. However, TFL behaviors allowed nursing managers to reach even higher levels of success without congruence and reward, embedding empowerment into the clinical environment [ 40 ]. Some studies also identified the empowerment subscale, autonomy, as the statistically significant predictor of commitment, indicating that managers can engage nurses in appropriate decision making about patient care and safety in their work environment [ 30 , 36 ]. Management that does not accept decision-making participation dissembles empowerment, which frustrates and makes staff dependent on an authoritarian structure [ 36 ].
Lievens and Vlerick (2014) found a strong association between TFL and nurse safety compliance [ 41 ]. The more transformational the leader was perceived, the more the nursing staff participated and complied with patient safety practices. Further, staff nurses’ structural empowerment also experienced a significant correlation with the degree to which they perceived nursing managers’ (NMs) TFL behaviors [ 36 , 40 ]. Research also suggested that when nurses perceived their TFL to facilitate an innovative work climate, they automatically contributed to developing innovation behaviors [ 39 ]. Previously mentioned research suggested that nurses need to feel a part of their work environment. However, countries where staff are hesitant to challenge authority create a reluctance to change, and compliance can breed a lack of stimulation [ 31 ]. It was reported that nurse managers should be trained to challenge nurses to resolve problems and specialize their competence to foster innovation and grow talents and creativity [ 36 ].
Lievens and Vlerick (2014), in their cross-sectional study which included 145 nurses, also found intellectual stimulation to strongly impact knowledge-related characteristics, suggesting an indirect link between safety performance and TFL through skills and ability demands, where the more knowledge-related job characteristics were perceived, the more nurses complied with safety rules [ 41 ]. Skill utilization or intellectual stimulation was further found to be the strongest single predictor of work engagement, compared to TFL, where nurses appreciated opportunities for personal development, learning new things, and achieving something meaningful, encouraging work engagement [ 2 , 42 ].
Patients’ outcomes:
The literature shows a positive relationship between TFL and the improvement of patient safety climate and culture, emphasizing that nursing managers are key to developing a safety climate and maintaining a culture of patient safety, preventing adverse events.
There was a significant prevalence of findings reporting TFL to facilitate patient safety either directly [ 2 , 9 , 38 , 42 ] or indirectly [ 32 , 39 , 41 ]. Seljemo et al. (2020), in their cross-sectional study, questioned 156 nurses; Ree and Wiig (2019), also in a cross-sectional design study, questioned 139 nurses and found TFL to be the strongest predictor of patient safety culture and overall perception of patient safety compared to job demands and resources [ 2 , 42 ]. This was suggested to result from TFL having a positive direct effect on the psychosocial work environment. Further evidence also links TFL directly to quality patient outcomes, reducing the possibility of adverse patient outcomes and increasing the quality of care [ 9 ].
Patient safety culture includes themes such as teamwork within units, managers’ support, organizational learning, overall perceptions of safety, feedback and communication openness about the error, frequency of events reported, staffing, handoffs and transitions, and non-punitive response to errors. “Teamwork within units” generally had a common positive perception amongst the nurses, indicating collaboration within their units as effective within TFL [ 38 , 43 , 44 ]. Anselmann and Mulder (2020) asked 183 geriatric nurses in their cross-sectional study, and they support the above, finding that TFL has a positive impact on team performance when a safe climate is fostered [ 45 ]. Even though nurses found cohesion within their units, literature revealed a common theme of insufficient “teamwork between units”, indicating that each unit had an independent culture [ 38 , 43 , 44 ]. Further, a generally weak perception of the effectiveness of RN-MD collaboration was also observed [ 38 , 43 ].
Researchers stressed the necessity of having efficient teamwork between units and on a multi-professional level to create an effective patient safety culture [ 9 ]. Another reoccurring subdimension, “feedback and rewarding”, was also identified as a weak component of TFL in relation to patient safety culture, illustrating a lack of adaptation and implementation of TLF behavior [ 9 , 43 , 46 ]. The TFL nursing manager generally seemed to conduct insufficient work around feedback and rewards, resulting in staff nurses not being encouraged and ensuring that medical errors were prevented and learned from [ 43 , 46 ].
Adverse events can result in patient disability or death, prolong the time necessary to provide care, and increase healthcare costs and patient dissatisfaction [ 47 ]. However, a part of the literature showed that when TFL and transactional leadership were compared, reporting errors without blame and discussing errors openly were the two initiatives that transactional leadership implemented better than TFL [ 40 , 48 ]. A significant finding in the literature was the reoccurring theme of weak patient safety culture in relation to “non-punctual reporting of adverse events” in hospitals with TFL, where staff nurses rarely reported occurring medical errors to their NMs [ 34 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 ]. In a Finnish study, one in four nurses showed to not have reported one or more medication errors using their units’ adverse event registration system [ 46 ]. Tekingündüz et al. (2021), in a cross-sectional study with 150 participating nurses, also found a significant weakness in their organization’s patient safety culture, where 52.7% of the nurses did not report any adverse events in the last 12 months, 31.3% reported 1–2 adverse events while 10% reported 3–5 adverse events [ 49 ]. Further, in a qualitative study, the eleven nurse manager participants expressed the importance of nursing staff reporting the occurrence of adverse events to detect why each event happened and identify patient safety risks and solutions [ 50 ]. There was evidence to suggest that nurses reported that the occurrence of errors only sometimes led to a positive change, whereas at other times, it did not lead to any change, and errors were repeated [ 38 ]. The literature explained blame culture and fear in the nurse’s work environment as a factor distancing them from punctuative reporting of medical errors [ 46 , 49 , 50 ]. It was suggested by researchers that nursing staff were not encouraged to report and discuss adverse events openly and blame-free [ 48 , 49 , 50 ]. This involves handling adverse reports by nursing managers without making nursing staff feel guilty.
Managers reported that a culture where it is recognized that everyone makes mistakes is imperial, while it was observed that nurses tended to report other colleagues’ mistakes compared to their own [ 50 ]. Further, nursing managers noticed that nursing staff may blame themselves for a patient safety incident where they feel ashamed and worry about their colleague’s perception of them [ 49 ]. These perceptions were confirmed by nursing staff in another study, expressing their tendency to avoid reporting due to fear of punishment, humiliation, damage to reputation, disciplinary action by a licensing board, malpractice lawsuits, and limited follow-up after reporting loss of job [ 48 ]. Tekingündüz et al. (2021) also found the defect in reporting medical errors to be rooted in nurse’s fear of punishment and lack of confidentiality [ 49 ]. Generally, fear was perceived as a major reason for not reporting adverse events, and nursing managers saw this as a barrier to the effectiveness of their leadership and the attempt to develop their operational models to improve patient safety [ 46 , 49 , 50 ]. However, visionary leadership styles such as TFL correlate positively with both incident reporting and patient safety outcomes. Additionally, TFL is linked to improved patient safety, including reduced mortality rates, fewer medication errors, lower incidences of pneumonia and urinary tract infections, and fewer patient falls, attributed to the leaders’ approach of using errors as chances to enhance processes and promoting the reporting of near misses and adverse events [ 17 , 51 ].
Interestingly, a part of the literature showed that when TFL and transactional leadership were compared, reporting errors without blame and discussing errors openly were the two initiatives that transactional leadership implemented better than TFL [ 40 , 48 ]. These findings confirm the weakness around reporting adverse events and blame culture within TFL units.
This review has collectively reviewed literature that has examined the effectiveness of transformational leadership (TFL) in a nursing work environment and patients’ outcomes. TFL has a complex, interconnected effect on nurses’ intrinsic environment and patient outcomes.
Nurses’ Work Environment:
The literature revealed substantial evidence that TFL can significantly enhance nurses’ psychosocial work environment by indirectly increasing job satisfaction. Three significant mediators between TFL and job satisfaction were nurse empowerment, organizational commitment, and spiritual climate, which altogether were thought to prevent retention in nursing [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 ]. Simultaneously, TFL was not the primary factor in job satisfaction but instead a facilitator and constructor of structural empowerment, organizational commitment, and spiritual climate. It is, therefore, evident that the literature revealed a positive domino effect that transformational leaders in nursing can generate. Generally, the literature revealed a strongly positive relationship between TFL and workplace culture in nursing [ 33 , 37 ]. Specific TFL attributes created an inclusive and supportive work environment, either directly or indirectly enhancing the nurses’ work environment and decreasing the risk of nurse burnout [ 37 , 52 ]. Nurses continuously reported managers’ support as a particularly important resource in their work environment, where establishing a high-quality relationship with their leaders was seen as imperial for patient safety culture [ 38 , 42 ].
The correlation observed between supportive leadership and favorable patient safety outcomes underscores the significance of Transformational Leaders (TFLs) possessing a comprehensive grasp of patient safety protocols, as well as recognizing the pivotal role played by bedside nurses in advancing improved safety outcomes. [ 17 ]. More specifically, managers’ support was also found to reinforce innovative behavior [ 39 ], increase job satisfaction [ 35 , 37 ], and even be the primary factor in a positive work environment, compared to TFL [ 29 ]. Conversely, the literature also described managers’ support as a core transformational behavior, where the more transformational the leader was perceived, the more the staff nurses experienced individual support in their clinical environment [ 29 , 42 , 46 ]. As concluded by the literature, TFL is not the primary factor but rather a mediator to job satisfaction, which was determined as an essential nursing outcome, shadowing quality work environment and may be an effective retention strategy in nursing. Previous studies confirm that safety outcomes are improved when workplace empowerment takes place in a positive nurse–leader relationship based on trust and respect, where they, together, work toward a patient safety culture [ 53 ].
Therefore, incorporating transformational leadership in nursing has numerous implications, with a direct and positive impact on job satisfaction. By nurturing a sense of purpose, providing support and empowerment, and promoting individual growth, transformational leaders create a fulfilling work environment that motivates nurses to excel. As nurses experience greater job satisfaction, patient care quality also improves, resulting in cooperative success for healthcare organizations, nursing staff, and the patients they serve.
Patients’ Outcomes:
The connection between supportive leadership and positive patient safety outcomes points to the importance of the TFL’s understanding of patient safety processes and the role of bedside nurses in promoting better safety outcomes [ 38 ]. However, several researchers reported not having a visible leader [ 43 ], which is documented as essential for patient safety changes to occur [ 53 ].
Researchers are linking negative patient safety outcomes to a lack of effective leadership, while relational leadership styles like transformational leadership continue to be associated with reduced adverse patient outcomes [ 17 ]. However, TFL nursing managers were repeatedly reported by the staff nurses only to communicate errors and problems after the adverse event, waiting for the event before resolving problems and taking proactive action [ 36 , 50 ]. Literature highlights that organizations that have successfully created a non-blame culture have better patient safety outcomes because the staff are encouraged to report errors, unsafe practices, and adverse events, perceiving safety around seeking help and assistance without threat [ 54 ]. Therefore, avoiding a blame culture and developing a reporting system serves as a proactive approach to identifying and mitigating risks, ultimately preventing errors and recurring mistakes, which, when left unaddressed, can result in significant social and economic burdens due to fatalities and preventable incidents [ 51 ] Additionally, developing a safety culture through managers’ interdisciplinary walkabout safety rounds has been associated with safety outcomes [ 17 ].
Transformational leadership in nursing has far-reaching implications for patient outcomes and care quality. By fostering a collaborative and patient-centered approach, empowering nursing staff, encouraging continuous learning, and promoting a culture of excellence, transformational leaders enhance the overall care experience for patients. Ultimately, the positive impact of transformational leadership on patient outcomes establishes it as a key factor in ensuring the delivery of high-quality healthcare services in nursing settings.
This literature review enriches nursing practice and research in a time where nursing leaders are sought to have an important and prominent role in healthcare policy development and improvement. Increased demand and complexity of patient care require effective and competent leadership skills and an understanding of TFL’s function in the current healthcare environment. Even though literature has constructed the idea of the nexus between patient safety and leadership, patient safety outcomes are unlikely to improve without facilitating and fostering the professional growth of future leaders. Additionally, factors influencing organizational job satisfaction and organizational commitment are significantly under the influence of TF nurse leaders. Therefore, healthcare organizations and the educational sector should invest in leadership training and curriculum to implement it further into nursing to support and ensure safe, quality work environments for both nurses and patients.
This literature review predominantly incorporated quantitative research methodologies, which, in certain instances, can present challenges in contextualizing a phenomenon comprehensively, as the data may not always possess the robustness required to elucidate intricate issues. Additionally, it should be noted that the review’s scope was confined to studies published exclusively in the English language, with no inclusion of relevant content from the grey literature beyond the stipulated publication sources, and unpublished dissertations were also omitted from consideration. Consequently, it is essential to acknowledge that this review may not provide a fully representative overview of all pertinent scholarship within the field.
Despite the global recognition and attempted implementation of TFL in healthcare, the statistics still show that TFL is yet to be mastered within nursing. The strong relationship between TFL, structural empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment signify that an improved quality work environment may be the most essential element to enhance job effectiveness and patient safety in nursing. TFL is a vital facilitator that could help healthcare to improve job satisfaction and reduce adverse events. Evidence suggests that nursing managers who possess effective TFL attributes are likely to influence their nursing staff’s satisfaction and mitigate the risk of burnout by establishing a supportive and inclusive work environment directly or indirectly. Focusing on the adoption of a blame-free culture through effective leadership is likely to break down barriers to safety culture, which has resulted in poor patient care worldwide. Patient safety outcomes rely on a well-established patient safety culture, which is most influenced by the bedside nurse, either directly or indirectly. With effective leadership engagement and education, emerging nursing leaders can be supported while the nursing team can be empowered to make the necessary changes to reach levels of excellence within their units. It is important to comprehend that leaders are not just in executive and senior positions but include any part of the healthcare team that is influential to patient care. Effective TFL engagement has the potential to enhance patient safety, where it is conveyed that all healthcare workers, from executive to bedside nurses, participate in a positive safety culture.
PRISMA 2020 Checklist.
Section and Topic | Item # | Checklist Item | Location Where Item Is Reported (Page Number) |
---|---|---|---|
Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review. | 1 |
Abstract | 2 | See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. | 1 |
Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. | 3 |
Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. | 3 |
Eligibility criteria | 5 | Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. | 4 |
Information sources | 6 | Specify all databases, registers, websites, organizations, reference lists, and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. | 4 |
Search strategy | 7 | Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used. | 4 |
Selection process | 8 | Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | 5 |
Data collection process | 9 | Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | 5 |
Data items | 10a | List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and, if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. | N/A |
10b | List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. | N/A | |
Study risk of bias assessment | 11 | Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | 7 |
Effect measures | 12 | Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. | N/A |
Synthesis methods | 13a | Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). | 20 |
13b | Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling missing summary statistics or data conversions. | N/A | |
13c | Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. | N/A | |
13d | Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. | N/A | |
13e | Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression). | N/A | |
13f | Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. | N/A | |
Reporting bias assessment | 14 | Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). | N/A |
Certainty assessment | 15 | Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. | N/A |
Study selection | 16a | Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. | 6 |
16b | Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. | 6 | |
Study characteristics | 17 | Cite each included study and present its characteristics. | 7 |
Risk of bias in studies | 18 | Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. | N/A |
Results of individual studies | 19 | For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. | N/A |
Results of syntheses | 20a | For each synthesis, briefly summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. | N/A |
20b | Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. | N/A | |
20c | Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. | 20–25 | |
20d | Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. | 20–25 | |
Reporting biases | 21 | Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. | N/A |
Certainty of evidence | 22 | Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. | 20–25 |
Discussion | 23a | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. | 25–26 |
23b | Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. | 25–26 | |
23c | Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. | 25–26 | |
23d | Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. | 25–26 | |
Registration and protocol | 24a | Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. | N/A |
24b | Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed or state that a protocol was not prepared. | N/A | |
24c | Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. | N/A | |
Support | 25 | Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. | 27 |
Competing interests | 26 | Declare any competing interests of review authors. | 27 |
Availability of data, code, and other materials | 27 | Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. | 31 |
From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ , access on 26 March 2023.
This research received no external funding.
Conceptualization, search, coding, and drafting, L.M.K.Y. and M.N.; search and quality assurance, coding, and feedback, S.G., E.L., G.P. and C.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Data availability statement, public involvement statement.
No public involvement in any aspect of this research.
This manuscript was drafted against the PRISMA 2020 Statement. A complete checklist is found in Appendix A of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Academic Support for Nursing Students
No notifications.
Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a student and not our expert nursing writers. View professional sample essays here.
View full disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NursingAnswers.net. This essay should not be treated as an authoritative source of information when forming medical opinions as information may be inaccurate or out-of-date.
Info: 2697 words (11 pages) Nursing Essay Published: 11th Feb 2020
Reference this
Executive summary:, struggling with your nursing essay(s).
If you need assistance with writing your nursing essay, our professional nursing essay writing service is here to help!
Conclusion:, recommendations:, bibliography, cite this work.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the NursingAnswers.net website then please:
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
Related Lectures
Study for free with our range of nursing lectures!
Write for Us
Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher in nursing or healthcare?
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your nursing studies!
COMMENTS
This discussion paper argues for the critical importance of successful leadership for effective mental health nursing, observing that nursing leadership has long been regarded problematically by the profession. Using empirical and theoretical evidence we debate what leadership styles and strategies are most likely to result in effective ...
Substance-Related Disorders / nursing*. Five nurse leaders in mental health offer their perspectives on key issues facing the sector and reflect on how nurses can make a difference in the following critical areas: nursing practice, transitions of care, innovative technologies, challenging stigma and creating patient partnerships.
Research Higher Degree Student, Senior Nurse. Institute for Health and Social Science Research, Centre for Mental Health Nursing Innovation, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. North Western Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Author ...
blegen n.e. & severinsson e. (2011) Journal of Nursing Management19, 487-497 Leadership and management in mental health nursing. Background Mental health nurses are agents of change, and their leadership, management role and characteristics exist at many levels in health care. Previous research presents a picture of mental health nurses as subordinate and passive recipients of the leader's ...
The relationship between the psychiatric and mental health nurse and members of the staff, and how the communication between them takes place, is decisive for whether the leadership will work or not (Ennis et al., 2015). The deeper experience of how nurses experience their leadership in psychiatric care is, however, not fully explored.
Abstract. This discussion paper argues for the critical importance of successful leadership for effective mental health nursing, observing that nursing leadership has long been regarded problematically by the profession. Using empirical and theoretical evidence we debate what leadership styles and strategies are most likely to result in ...
Purpose: Explore the perceptions of nurses working in mental health of effective clinical leadership. Design and methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with registered nurses employed in a mental health setting. Qualitative research using grounded theory. Findings: Remaining calm and confident in times of crisis and uncertainty was identified as one attribute of clinical leadership.
The findings suggest mental health nurse leaders find intrinsic rewards in the role; aspire to making authentic connections with consumers; appreciate the position of trust that they hold in bearing witness to individuals' distress; and use creative means to solve problems and achieve therapeutic outcomes. Expand. 10.
Burnout subsequently had a negative effect on mental health (β = −.69). Indirect effects of authentic leadership on burnout and mental health were significant (β = .072 and β = .05) Majeed and Fatima , Pakistan. To test the impact of exploitative leadership on nurses' psychological distress.
Abstract. Mental health nursing should inspire, support, and create the conditions under which people will flourish. To improve patient experience and sustain recovery-based outcomes, nurses must collaborate with other healthcare professionals, work alongside managers to support operational systems, and work in partnership with service users and their carers and families.
Faculty of Health Sciences, Centre for. Women's Family & Child Health, Vestfold University College, Vestfold, Tønsberg, Norway. Introduction. Leadership in mental health nursing has changed as ...
Contemporary Nurse, 37(2), 173-187. Happell, B. (2008). The importance of clinical experience for mental health nursing - Part 1: Undergraduate nursing 61 Clinical Leadership in Mental Health Nursing: The Importance of a Calm and Confident Approach students' attitudes, preparedness and satisfaction.
holm a.l. & severinsson e. (2010) Journal of Nursing Management18, 463-471 The role of the mental health nursing leadership. Aim The aim of the present study was to illuminate what the mental health nursing (MHN) leader needs in order to develop her/his leadership role.. Background MHN leadership has tended to focus on the nature of the care provided rather than the development of the role.
Background Research shows a significant growth in clinical leadership from a nursing perspective; however, clinical leadership is still misunderstood in all clinical environments. Until now, clinical leaders were rarely seen in hospitals' top management and leadership roles. Purpose This study surveyed the attributes and skills of clinical nursing leadership and the actions that effective ...
In addition, a manual search for relevant papers and significant references, including theoretical papers and books related to the issue, was conducted. ... International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 17 (3), 162-170. Holm A.L. & Severinsson E. (2010) The role of the mental health nursing leadership. Journal of Nursing Management 18 (4 ...
Leadership in health care is recognized as a necessity to ensure high-quality care, embody support for staff, and establish working environments that prioritize people over rules, regulations, and hierarchies (West et al., 2015).It is argued that compassionate leadership has a positive impact on "patient experience, staff engagement and organisational performance" (Bolden et al., 2019, p. 2).
Conclusion: Mental health nurses' leadership, management and transformational leadership are positively related in terms of effectiveness and nurses' skills. Implication for nursing management: It is important to consider mental health nurses' management as a form of leadership similar to or as a natural consequence of transformational ...
Racism is a structural determinant of health that affects mental health outcomes in the United States and globally. Nursing leaders must respond to a call to action to address racism in nursing. The purpose of the current article is to present evidence-based, race-conscious strategies for nurses in leadership roles to identify, challenge, and ...
The Ely inquiry into the systematic brutal treatment of patients in a Cardiff mental institution was the first formal inquiry into NHS failings (Department of Health and Social Security, 1969).Since that time there have been more than 100 inquiries with inadequate leadership persistently identified as a major concern (Sheard, 2015).National responses have included the NHS Healthcare Leadership ...
1.1. Rational. Healthcare systems are globally facing a crisis, with nurse shortage being a perennial issue. Nurses have the highest patient interaction, making nurse leaders central catalysts in positively influencing patient safety culture to reach safer patient outcomes [].At the same time, negative nursing work environments cultivate dissatisfied nurses who are likely to suffer from ...
Machin, T (1998) Teamwork in community mental health, British Journal of Community Nursing, 3, 1, 17-24. Moiden, N (2003) A framework for leadership, Nursing Management, 9, 10, 19-23. Onyett, S, Pillinger, T and Muijen, M (1997) Job satisfaction and burnout among members of community mental health teams, Journal of Mental Health, 6, 1, 56-66.
These can be given as follows: 1. Conducting interviews, using surveys and questionnaires to understand nurse attitudes and perceptions towards leadership styles. 2. Performing personality tests to identify traits correlating with the different leadership styles to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the workforce. 3.
holm a.l. & severinsson e. (2010) Journal of Nursing Management18, 463-471 The role of the mental health nursing leadership. Aim The aim of the present study was to illuminate what the mental health nursing (MHN) leader needs in order to develop her/his leadership role.. Background MHN leadership has tended to focus on the nature of the care provided rather than the development of the role.