4.5 Article

Factors associated with professional identity among ICU nurses during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study

期刊

NURSING OPEN
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 5701-5710

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1817

关键词

COVID-19; ICU nurses; path analysis; perceived professional benefits; professional identity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with professional identity among ICU nurses in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that perceived professional benefits, doctor recognition level, and family support level were related to professional identity. Path analysis revealed that perceived professional benefits and doctor recognition level had direct effects on professional identity, and doctor recognition level and family support level had indirect effects on professional identity through the mediation of perceived professional benefits.
Aim: To determine the associated factors of professional identity among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Design: Multicentre cross-sectional study. Methods: This study invited 348 ICU nurses in five hospitals in China from May to July 2020. Online self-report questionnaires were adopted to collect their demographic and occupational characteristics, perceived professional benefits and professional identity. Based on univariate and multiple linear regression analysis, a path analysis was performed to determine the associated factors' effects on professional identity. Results: The mean score of professional identity was 102.38 +/- 16.46. Perceived professional benefits, doctor recognition level and family support level were associated with ICU nurses' professional identity. The path analysis revealed that perceived professional benefits and doctor recognition level had direct effects on professional identity. In addition, doctor recognition level and family support level had indirect effects on professional identity through the mediation of perceived professional benefits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据