ReviewNursing open2024
Advanced nurse practitioner well-being: A 4-year cohort mixed methods study.
Review in Nursing open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Ratios: Evidence for Optimal Minimum Nurse-Patient-Ratios in Medical-Surgical Settings.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Cancer Nurses Society of Australia mentorship program for cancer nurse practitioners: brief research report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Advanced nurse practitioner well-being: A 4-year cohort mixed methods study.Nursing open · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo examine changes in advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) well-being, satisfaction and motivation over a four-year period.
designLongitudinal Cohort study.
methodsSurveys were carried out each year from 2019 to 2022 with the same cohort of ANPs in the United Kingdom (UK). The survey consisted of demographics, questions on contemporary issues in advanced practice, National Health Service (NHS) staff survey questions and validated questionnaires. A core set of questions were asked every year with some changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
resultsResponse rate ranged from 40% to 59% and appeared to be affected by COVID-19. Staff satisfaction with pay and the well-being score were stable throughout. Other questions on well-being, job satisfaction and motivation saw statistically significant reductions after 4 years. Open-ended questions about ongoing well-being concerns show participants are concerned about exhaustion levels caused by workload, staffing issues, abuse from patients and colleagues' mental health.
conclusionThe findings highlight a decline in ANP well-being, job satisfaction and motivation post-COVID-19. Reasons for this, explored in the qualitative data, show that ANPs have faced extremely difficult working conditions. Urgent action is required to prevent a workforce retention crisis as many nursing staff are close to retirement and may not be motivated to remain in post. IMPACT: This study has followed ANPs through the most challenging years the NHS has ever seen. Job satisfaction, motivation and enjoyment of the job all significantly reduced over time. In many areas, the ANP role has been used to fill medical workforce gaps, and this will become harder to do if ANPs are dissatisfied, disaffected and struggling with stress and burnout. Addressing these issues should be a priority for policymakers and managers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None as this study focussed on staff. Staff stakeholders involved in the design and conduct of the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.