4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          One important part of a nurse’s job is to create and help maintain a safe work environment. Evidence shows that negative behaviors such as incivility are not uncommon in the nursing profession. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the prevalence of incivility toward nurses. For this purpose, all observational studies that primarily investigated the rate of incivility toward nurses were selected. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Sciences, Magiran, IranDoc, and Scopus were searched for studies published during the period of January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2019. The quality of studies was assessed using Hoy’s Critical Assessment Checklist. The study was undertaken using the random effects model, and data were analyzed using STATA14. Data on 60 articles, including data on 30801 individuals, published between 1997 and 2019, entered the study. The findings showed the prevalence of incivility to be 55.10% (95%, CI: 48.05, 62.06).

          Due to the high prevalence of uncivil behavior, especially of the verbal type, nursing managers should identify risk factors in the workplace. Planners should develop programs to increase workplace safety, especially in centers that are most exposed to these behaviors. It is also recommended that future studies focus on implementation of effective evidence-based interventions based on organizational culture.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

          Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data.

            There currently does not exist guidance for authors aiming to undertake systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies, such as those reporting prevalence and incidence information. These reviews are particularly useful to measure global disease burden and changes in disease over time. The aim of this article is to provide guidance for conducting these types of reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.

              In the course of performing systematic reviews on the prevalence of low back and neck pain, we required a tool to assess the risk of study bias. Our objectives were to (1) modify an existing checklist and (2) test the final tool for interrater agreement. The final tool consists of 10 items addressing four domains of bias plus a summary risk of bias assessment. Two researchers tested the interrater agreement of the tool by independently assessing 54 randomly selected studies. Interrater agreement overall and for each individual item was assessed using the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic. Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.86). Agreement was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment. We have addressed a research gap by modifying and testing a tool to assess risk of study bias. Further research may be useful for assessing the applicability of the tool across different conditions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Ethics Hist Med
                J Med Ethics Hist Med
                JMEHM
                Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine
                Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran )
                2008-0387
                2021
                3 November 2021
                : 14
                : 15
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Professor, Department of Psychiatric Nursing and Management, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Labbafinezhad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
                [2 ] Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Labbafinezhad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
                [3 ] Student Research Committee, PhD Student of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran.
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding Author: Soolmaz Moosavi. Address: Vali-Asr Avenue, Cross of Vali-Asr Avenue and Hashemi Rafsanjani (Neiaiesh) Highway, Opposite to Rajaee Heart Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Postal Code: 1996835119. Tel: (+98) 21 88 20 25 21. Email: Moosavi.soolmaz@ 123456sbmu.ac.ir
                Article
                JMEHM-14-15
                10.18502/jmehm.v14i15.7670
                8696574
                35035802
                4397dfc9-01f0-4187-9cde-69ae3de21763
                Copyright © 2021 Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 January 2021
                : 1 September 2021
                Categories
                Review Article

                incivility,uncivil behavior,nurses,workplace violence.
                incivility, uncivil behavior, nurses, workplace violence.

                Comments

                Comment on this article