ArticleBMC nursing2025
Current status of career adaptability among Chinese cardiovascular specialist nurses: a latent profile analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to explore the career adaptability status of cardiovascular specialist nurses (CSNs) through latent profile analysis (LPA), identify distinct subgroups and their demographic features, and determine factors influencing different adaptability categories.
backgroundCSNs play a vital role in treating and rehabilitating patients with cardiovascular conditions. However, the existing literature offers limited insights into the career adaptability of CSNs in China.
methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional survey involving 659 Chinese CSNs was conducted. LPA was utilized to classify career adaptability profiles based on responses to the Career Adaptation Abilities Scale Short Form (CAAS-SF). Influencing factors were assessed using the Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II (CWEQ-II) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Differences among identified profiles were analyzed through ANOVA, chi-square tests, and multinomial logistic regression to explore relevant socio-demographic characteristics and influencing variables.
resultsA four-profile model provided the best fit, identifying groups labeled as “high adaptability” (Class 4, n = 68, 10.5%), “good adaptability” (Class 3, n = 285, 42.6%), “moderate adaptability” (Class 1, n = 269, 41.2%), and “low adaptability” (Class 2, n = 37, 5.7%). Regression analysis indicated that highest educational level, monthly frequency of night shifts, opportunity, resources, informal empowerment, and self-efficacy were influencing factors associated with profile membership. CSNs working 1~2 night shifts per month (OR = 2.226, 95% CI: 1.014, 4.887) or possessing a bachelor’s degree (OR = 2.090, 95% CI: 1.440, 3.035) exhibited a greater likelihood of belonging to Class 3. Those reporting more opportunities (OR = 1.113, 95% CI: 1.001, 1.238; OR = 1.236, 95% CI: 1.028,1.485) tended toward membership in Classes 3 and 4. Furthermore, CSNs with greater resources (OR = 0.777, 95% CI: 0.620, 0.975; OR = 1.360, 95% CI: 1.116, 1.656) were significantly associated with membership in Classes 1 and 4. Additionally, higher informal empowerment (OR = 1.095, 95% CI: 1.001, 1.198) was associated with Class 3 membership. Enhanced self-efficacy (OR = 1.112, 95% CI: 1.069, 1.159; OR = 1.358, 95% CI: 1.268,1.455) increased the likelihood of classification into Classes 3 and 4.
conclusionsThese findings provide evidence to assist nursing administrators in developing training programs to enhance CSNs’ career adaptability. The variables identified as associated with profile membership may enable more tailored training strategies.
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.