Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2024 | Research

Workplace dignity amongst clinical nurses

verfasst von: Jennifer de Beer, Hawazen Rawas, Wadea Beheri

Erschienen in: BMC Nursing | Ausgabe 1/2024

Abstract

Background

The workplace environment plays a pivotal role in employees’ lives as they spend many hours there. Recently, greater attention has been placed on workplace conditions as a key social determinant of health. One way through which workplace conditions may affect health is workplace dignity. This study aimed to describe clinical nurses’ workplace dignity.

Methods

The study design was descriptive and cross-sectional. Clinical nurses within a tertiary institution were randomly sampled. Data collection included the Workplace Dignity scale which is an 18 item-seven-point Likert scale consisting of dignity and indignity questions (α.98, and 0.95, respectively). Data collection commenced with a pilot followed by a final data collection phase. Ethical considerations were included via informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality. Data analysis included means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations.

Results

The pilot test yielded a reliability coefficient – α 0.93. Two hundred and thirty-six clinical nurses participated in the study resulting in a response rate of 87.4%. The average mean age of participants was 37.966 ± 0.635 (min 25- max 60) years. Most participants were female (92.8%) with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degree (77.5%). The overall mean experience as a registered nurse was 16.038 ± 0.589 years. Nationality responses were divided into Saudi (41.5%) and non-Saudi (58.5%). The construct of general dignity had the highest mean score of 5.52 (SD 1.46), with question 14: “I have dignity at work” having the highest overall mean score of 5.63 (SD 1.4). There was a positive correlation and statistical significance with a ‘p < 0.000 i.e. as a nurses’ experience as a registered nurse increased, workplace dignity scores increased.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicated that inherent value and general dignity were the highest-scored constructs while indignity and respectful interaction scored the lowest. This study allows for reflection on the importance of workplace dignity, as an impactful and important organizational phenomenon that affects either positively or negatively on employee well-being and performance, hence workplace dignity must be prioritized within work environmental infrastructures.
Hinweise
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12912-024-02430-w.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background

The workplace environment plays a pivotal role in an employee’s life because they spend many hours of their daytime at the workplace. The behavioral processes, rules, regulations, resources, culture, working relationships, and work location are all considered part of the work environment [1, 2]. Numerous studies explored the relationship between health, well-being, and physical workplace characteristics [37].
In recent years, greater attention has been placed on workplace conditions as a key social determinant of health [8, 9]. One way through which workplace conditions may affect health is workplace dignity (WD). Hodson’s [10] (p. 3) provided a theoretical construct of WD and defined dignity as an individual’s ability to establish her/his self-worth, and to appreciate and recognize the respect of others. Later Lucas [11] (p2549) defined WD as “the self and others’ acknowledged worth acquired from engaging in work activity”. WD is conceptualized as a personal sense of worth, respect, esteem, or value derived from one’s social position and, as worth that is acknowledged based on the performance of job responsibilities, as well as self-esteem and status derived from engaging in doing work itself [11]. Lucas also highlighted that although dignity itself is a positive concept, in lived experience, it tends to be understood and experienced by its absence rather than its presence.
Professional dignity among nurses is a relatively new concept [1214]. Nursing professional dignity can be defined as a multivalent concept, complex and composed of social elements [15] and intrinsic characteristics of the person which are intertwined [13]. Characteristics are based on individual traits, professional competence, and nurses’ experience; inter- and intra-professional relationships, workplace characteristics, public acceptance, and professional autonomy [16].
Factors that can affect the professional dignity of nurses include violence (physical violence, psychological violence), honor insults, and ethnic-religious insults [17]; violation of autonomy, negating the value of the nurse, disregarding professional and scientific capabilities [18]; low staffing numbers, excessive working hours and insufficient time [13]; organizational injustice and high workload [16]. This results in the dignity of nurses being compromised leading to a lack of confidence; compromised identity and professional worth, dissatisfaction [19]; reduced quality patient care, and an increased desire to leave the profession [12, 13, 18].
According to Houck & Colbert [20], unsupportive and disruptive work environments can lead to life-threatening patient safety incidents negatively affecting the professional dignity of nurses. Nurses are unable to optimally uphold the dignity of patients in work environments where they experience disrespect towards their professional dignity [21]. Gallagher [21] (p 592) explored the idea of dignity in nursing practice as both self-regarding and other-regarding and proposed that: “when the worth, value or dignity of nurses is not respected in tangible ways then their self-respect may be compromised and their ability to respect the dignity of patients, families, and colleagues is reduced.”
Fowler [22] mentioned that if all individuals have a worth and dignity that must be affirmed by the nurse, the nurse, too, has a worth and dignity that must be affirmed. According to Milton [23] (p. 301), “The nurse owes the same duties to self as to others, including the responsibility to preserve integrity and safety, to maintain competency, and to continue personal and professional growth. Most of the WD research has been conducted using a qualitative lens. These studies have reported rich and nuanced accounts of employee vulnerabilities, problematic workplaces, and responses to dignity threats ranging from identity work and coping to resistance and retaliation. For example, researchers have studied the economic insecurity of day laborers [24]; the abuse and humiliation of nurses [18]; the undervalued occupational status of childcare workers [25] the social and career harms inflicted on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) employees [26], the stigmatization of custodians [27]. Moreover, existing quantitative studies [19, 2833] are based on the same single dataset. Before 2019, there was no quantitative measure/scale to measure WD, but Thomas and Lucas [34] developed and validated an 18-item WD Scale. After this, few studies documented using the scale; Scott - Campbell & Campbell [35] validated the WDS in the form of a thesis for a master in psychology in New Zealand; Sainz et al. [36] used a Spanish version of the WDS including Mexican workers from different business sectors [37]. None of these studies included healthcare workers. The current study included nurses and the findings provide a quantitative measure of WDS for nurses. This allowed hypothesized relationships to be tested in a new context. This study enabled the researchers to examine WD more directly and systematically [34].

Methods

Aim

The study aimed to describe clinical nurses WD at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Design

A descriptive cross-sectional design was followed.
Research Setting, population, and sampling.
The research setting included a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. The inclusion criteria included clinical nurses who completed at least six months of employment with the organization. During the data collection, the population of nurses who met the inclusion criteria was 900. Based on a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%, a minimum sample size of 270 was calculated with the assistance of a senior statistician using a sample size calculator. A random sampling technique focused on gender, job title; experience, and nationality. Randomization included using the hospital identification numbers of clinical nurses.
WD was measured using the Workplace Dignity Scale: which is an 18-item -Likert scale from (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The scale consists of six factors namely; respectful interaction (3 items); recognition of competence and contribution (3 items); equality (2 items), inherent values (3 items), and general feelings concerning WD (3 items); and Indignity (4 items). Dignity factors comprised items that were positively worded (questions 1–4) and negatively worded items (questions 15–18). The internal consistency estimate for this set of items was good (α = 0.96; 95% CI [0.96, 0.97]) [34]. Campbell reported strong internal consistency with a high McDonald ωt estimates for both dignity and indignity (of 0.98, and 0.95, respectively) [35].
This study involved piloting the original English scale to validate its applicability in a culturally diverse nursing care environment, representing the first validation of this tool within such a context. Ten clinical nurse leaders deemed the content and, usability of the tool appropriate. The result of the reliability coefficient was α 0.93 which included 50 nurses. Email permission to use the tool was obtained from tool development authors [34]. Data collection commenced only after approval from King Faisal and Specialist Hospital and Research Centre- Jeddah, Research Ethics Committee, approved the study- IRB number, 2022-69. Nurses who were randomized were contacted via individual emails, at which point a REDcap link containing a question related to informed consent; an information document, and the questionnaire were shared during the pilot and final data collection phases. The informed consent statement had to be acknowledged on the survey link before proceeding to the questions on the questionnaire. This ensured all nurses consented to participate in the study. Clinical nurses included in the pilot study were excluded from the final data collection. No identification data was collected to honor confidentiality and anonymity.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 was used for descriptive and inferential analysis. Descriptive statistics included medians and standard deviations. Parametric tests of Pearson’s Correlations were used to determine statistically significant relationships indicated with a p-value of ≤ 1.

Findings

Demographic details

Two hundred and thirty-six clinical nurses participated in the study resulting in a response rate of 87.4%. The average mean age of participants was 37.966 ± 0.635 (min 25- max 60) years. Most participants were female (92.8%) with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree (77.5%). The overall mean experience as a registered nurse was 16.038 ± 0.589 years. Nationality responses were divided into Saudi (41.5%) and non- Saudi (58.5%) (Table 1).
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the study sample (N = 236)
Items
n
%
Age group (Years)
  
 25-40
147
62.3
 41-50
51
21.6
 +50
38
16.1
Mean age ±SD
37.966 ± 0.635
 Min.
25
 Max.
60
Gender
  
 Female
219
92.8
 Male
17
7.2
Job title
  
 SN1
211
89.4
 SN11
2
0.8
 SN111
3
1.3
 Clinical Specialist
4
1.7
 Clinical Instructor
1
0.4
 Head nurse
3
1.3
 Nurse clinician
9
3.8
 Others
3
1.3
Overall experience (Years)
  
 1-5
96
40.7
 06-10
62
26.3
 11-20
63
26.7
 +20
15
6.4
Overall experience ± SD
8.730 ± 0.431
 Min.
1
 Max.
27
Registered nurse experience (Years)
  
 1-5
34
14.4
 6-10
30
12.7
 11-20
103
43.6
 +20
69
29.3
Mean registered nurse experience ± SD
16.038 ± 0.589
 Min.
1
 Max.
37
Educational level
  
 Bachelor
183
77.5
 Diploma
34
14.4
 Postgraduate
19
8.1
Nationality
  
 Saudi
98
41.5
 Non-Saudi
138
58.5
SN1 = Staff Nurse 1; SN11 = Staff Nurse 11; Staff Nurse 111
From the dignity factors (Table 2), the construct of general dignity has the highest mean score of 5.52 ± 1.46, with question 14: “I have dignity at work” having the highest overall mean score of 5.63 ± 1.40. The construct of inherent value has the second highest overall mean of 5.44 ± 1.45, however from the construct of competence-contribution, question 5 “People at work recognize my competence”, scored the second highest mean overall score of 5.60 ± 1.39. From the construct of indignity - question 18 had the lowest scoring mean for the negatively worded items: “I am treated in undignifying ways at work” with a mean score of 2.29 ± 1.02. Question 15 within the same construct: People at work treat me like a second-class citizen” recorded the highest scoring mean of 3.64 ± 1.83. Within this data set, the overall lowest mean for the positively worded items was from the construct of respectful interaction with an overall mean score of 5.21 ± 1.21 with question 1: “People at work communicate with me respectfully” recording the lowest mean score of 5.14 ± 1.27 (see Table 3). Nurses with + 20 years of experience at the current institution reported more dignity (88.23) which highlighted a positive correlation and statistical significance with a ‘p < 0.000 i.e. as the experience of nurses at the current institution increased, WD also increased. Clinical nurses with experience of + 20 years as registered nurses reported higher WD (88.23) than nurses with 11–20 years of experience (85.39); 1–5 years of experience (78.91), and 6–10 years of experience (76.16) respectively. This highlighted a positive correlation and statistical significance with a ‘p < 0.000 i.e. as the nurses’ experience as a registered nurse increased, WD scores increased (Table 4).
Table 2
Overall mean scores for the dignity factors
Respectful interaction
5.21 ± 1.21
Competence contribution
5.39 ± 1.32
Equality
5.24 ± 1.48
Inherent value
5.44 ± 1.45
General dignity
5.52± 1.46
Indignity
2.66 ± 1.22
Table 3
Dignity factors mean and SD (N = 236)
Descriptive Statistics
 
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Respectful interaction
1. People at work communicate with me respectfully
236
1.00
7.00
5.14
1.27346
2. I feel respected when I interact with people at work
236
1.00
7.00
5.22
1.23864
3. I am treated with respect at work
236
1.00
7.00
5.27
1.20830
Competence- contribution
4. At work, I have the chance to build my competence
236
1.00
7.00
5.30
1.18077
5. People at work recognize my competence
236
1.00
7.00
5.60
1.39047
6. People show they appreciate my work efforts
236
1.00
7.00
5.27
1.41051
Equality
7. At work, people talk to me like an equal, even if there are status differences between us
236
1.00
7.00
5.25
1.53088
8. I feel just as valued as others in the organization
236
1.00
7.00
5.23
1.44720
Inherent value
     
9. At work, I am valued as a human being1
236
1.00
7.00
5.57
1.46415
10. People at work treat me like I matter as a person, not just as a worker
236
1.00
7.00
5.35
1.48726
11. People at work genuinely value me as a person
236
1.00
7.00
5.41
1.40436
General Dignity
12. My workplace is a source of dignity for me
236
1.00
7.00
5.46
1.50553
13. I am treated with dignity at work
236
1.00
7.00
5.47
1.47719
14. I have dignity at work
236
1.00
7.00
5.63
1.40050
Indignity
15. People at work treat me like a second-class citizen
236
1.00
7.00
3.6483
1.83559
16. I am treated as less valuable than objects or pieces of equipment
236
1.00
4.00
2.3475
1.00108
17. My dignity suffers at work
236
1.00
4.00
2.3686
0.96960
18. I am treated in undignifying ways at work
236
1.00
4.00
2.2924
1.02069
Table 4
Correlation matrix between nurses’ demographic characteristics on work dignity
 
Age
Gender
Job title
Current unit
OE
RNE
Educational
Level
Nationality
Pearson Correlation
Work dignity
0.045
0.044
0.083
0.334
0.287
0.228
− 0.007
− 0.036
Significance
Work dignity
0.247
0.251
0.103
0.020
0.000**
0.000**
0.460
0.290
OE: Organizational experience, RNE: Registered Nurse Experience
Statistical Significance p-value *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Discussion

This study provides insights from data on dignity experiences by clinical nurses within the current study setting. Overall, the results highlight that inherent value and general dignity were the highest-scored constructs while indignity and respectful interaction scored the lowest. The data reveal that the construct of general dignity received the highest mean score (5.52 ± 1.46). This possibly aligns with a positive professional practice environment of the study setting. The item “I have dignity at work” scored even higher (5.63 ± 1.40), reflecting a positive perception of personal dignity among the participants possibly attributed to a positive practice environment. Froneman et al. [19] conducted a phenomenological study on enhancing the professional dignity of midwives and reported that the working environment plays a crucial role in shaping the professional dignity of midwives. A supportive and positive environment is essential for fostering a strong sense of professional dignity and ensuring high-quality nursing care. According to Combrinck et al. [14], excessive workloads and unfavorable nurse-to-patient ratios create substantial challenges for nurses, making it difficult to provide the high-quality care expected in their roles. This strain not only affects the nurses’ ability to deliver optimal care but also contributes to increased stress and job dissatisfaction, further exacerbating the difficulties faced in maintaining nursing standards.
The nursing practice environment is key to quality of care and patient satisfaction [38]. A stressful environment decreases the quality of care, patient satisfaction, and patient safety [39]. Sharif et al. [38] discuss, that nurses’ psychological wellbeing is critical and directly related to the quality of patient care delivered. Therefore, managers need to address factors relating to negativity in the workplace, whether it is a lack of support, perceived unfairness, or distress if they want a high standard of care to be delivered [17, 40]. According to Faulkner & Laschinger [41] and Purdy et al. [42], essential components of healthcare work environments incorporate intra- and interprofessional relationships, communication with patients and their families, and the general organizational setting. Disrespect for individuals’ dignity frequently manifests in both intra- and interprofessional interactions [13, 43, 44]. Within intra-professional relationships, younger nurses [45], in particular, are susceptible to horizontal [46] and lateral violence [47], which include disruptive behaviors like bullying, infighting, and verbal abuse. These issues can lead to significant stress and frustration, obstructing the proper development of professional dignity [48].
Specific findings related to questions (13, and 14) with means of 5.46 ± 1.5; 5.47 ± 1.4; and 5.63 ± 1.4) respectively highlight that nurses perceived that work was a source of dignity and being treated with respect at work. Workers’ perceptions of their work environment have an important influence on job-related outcomes such as job satisfaction [4951]. Sainz et al. [36] study reported on worker job satisfaction and worker dignity where job satisfaction is strongly related to working conditions and work relationships are strongly influenced by the work environment. Dignity at work is a basic and unconditional requirement for each person and independent of the characteristics of specific tasks that workers perform [11, 33]. It could be negatively affected when the work environment is hostile [52]. Both job satisfaction and dignity could therefore be reduced in negative work environments [36].
The construct of respectful interaction had the lowest mean score (5.21 ± 1.21), with the item “People at work communicate with me respectfully” recording the lowest individual score (5.14 ± 1.27). Numerous studies indicated that dignity at work is maintained or restored by numerous connections and relations at work but above all co-worker relationships were seen as the most fundamental [48, 53, 54] Khademi et al. [18] identified disrespect as a prominent issue for nurses in their interactions with managers, physicians, and patients’ relatives, encompassing behaviors that ranged from subtle humiliation to outright physical confrontations. Lawless and Moss [55] showed that interactions with patients, colleagues, or managers can influence the preservation, maintenance, or undermining of conditions affecting nurses’ dignity. In this current study, the relatively lower scores related to respectful interaction may indicate areas where interventions could improve workplace culture and communication practices.
The construct of indignity even though negatively worded, showed a relatively significant overall mean score (2.66 ± 1.22), with items such as “I am treated in undignifying ways at work” scoring particularly low (2.29 ± 1.02) and “people at work treat me like a second-class citizen” (3.64 ± 1.83). This finding could suggest that while there are instances of indignity, they are less frequent compared to the overall perception of dignity. Further, this study’s findings can be explained using Hall et al. [56]’ theoretical framework of marginalization in nursing. According to Hall et al. [55], the conceptual definition of marginalization in nursing refers to “a process that results in groups being peripheralized because of several factors, including a person’s identity, experiences, and associations. Within this theoretical framework, the sub-concept of power refers to those in power over those who have been peripherilized which is hierarchical and bidirectional. This results in those on the periphery (i.e., the marginalized) using secrecy to conceal any differences that create and maintain environments and marginalized social groups. Hall’s conceptual framework could be a possible explanation for this [56, 57].
Additionally, the distribution of nationality—41.5% Saudi and 58.5% non-Saudi—provides a glimpse into the multicultural environment of the institution. Expatriate nurses from different cultural and, linguistic backgrounds mainly staff the healthcare system in Saudi Arabia [58]. The Saudi cultural context and society have its own unique set of characteristics that shape the lifestyle of its population, namely customs, traditions, values, and beliefs. Further, people’s beliefs and attitudes are intrinsically linked to Islamic and Arabic tribal traditions. In the Saudi culture, what healthcare professionals must do for patients and what the family of the patient wants may lead to many conflicts between nursing staff, patients, and family members. This highlights the cultural differences between people of different cultural backgrounds [59] that could affect WD.
The statistically significant results highlighted greater years of experience working in the current organization and as a registered nurse, which resulted in nurses having higher WD. Najafi et al. [60] conducted a study on respect and dignity from physicians, colleagues, patients, and their family members, for nurses with different levels of experience. The study findings revealed the highest rate of dignity violation was reported in nurses with inadequate clinical care experience. Concerning the area of professional independence, nurses with insufficient clinical experience had lower confidence to consult with physicians in comparison with experienced nursing staff (P < 0.04). In the area of respect, nurses with lower levels of experience captured less respect from physicians compared to experienced nurses (P < 0.04). Amudha et al. [61] found that doctors preferred to work with only experienced nurses whilst patients tended to rely more on competent nurses to support them in their healthcare needs. Less experienced nurses perceived that they were treated differently as compared to experienced nurses. Although the current study only included clinical nurses with more than six months of experience, it is worth reporting the findings by Sawafta et al. [62] and Baloyi et al. [63] who showed that newly qualified registered nurses feel belittled and disrespected in their units and commonly experienced more stressors within the workplace. According to the study by Klinner et al. [64], respect was the most common aspect that all study participants associated with the concept of dignity i.e. respect for others, mutual respect, and a culture of respect. This was reiterated by Sakar et al. [65], who reported that, when employees feel respected and, valued by their colleagues, supervisors, and the organization, they are more likely to experience a sense of autonomy, respect, and fairness in their professional relationships. This results in enhanced job satisfaction, motivation, and overall well-being which is directly related to dignity.

Limitations

A key limitation of the current study was the sample’s representativeness. Even though the response rate was 87.4%, the sample was primarily limited to nurses working in the general nursing area. Nurses from the ambulatory and specialty areas were under-represented. Another limitation of the study was that data collection included a single setting. The final limitation included the fact that the topic at hand was sensitive. A fair number of respondents chose the neutral option. This made it difficult to assess whether this option was related to nurses having no opinions related to the items concerned or nurses not wanting to answer the sensitive questions. Future research could include research methodologies that allow for generalizability such as bigger more diverse samples and more research settings.

Conclusion

This study was the first attempt at using the WD dignity scale within nursing. Even though this is a simple cross-sectional study, results from this study allow for reflection on the importance of WD as an impactful and important organizational phenomenon that affects either positively or negatively on employee wellbeing and performance, hence it should be prioritized within our work environmental infrastructures.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all clinical nurses for participating in this study and the authors of the WD scale.

Declarations

The King Faisal and Specialist Hospital and Research Centre- Jeddah, Research Ethics Committee at the study setting, approved the study- IRB number, 2022-69. Informed consent was obtained from all participants via a consent statement at the beginning of each questionnaire. In addition, an information document was shared with the questionnaire on the REDCap link. Participants were fully informed of the study’s method and expected benefits.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by-nc-nd/​4.​0/​.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Agbozo GK, Owusu IS, Hoedoafia MA, Atakorah YB. The effect of work environment on job satisfaction: evidence from the banking sector in Ghana. J Hum Resource Manage. 2017;5(1):12–8.CrossRef Agbozo GK, Owusu IS, Hoedoafia MA, Atakorah YB. The effect of work environment on job satisfaction: evidence from the banking sector in Ghana. J Hum Resource Manage. 2017;5(1):12–8.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Haruna A. Impact of physical workplace factors and psychosocial workplace factors on employees performance in selected state universities in North East, Nigeria. Int J Educational Res Libr Sci. 2024;4(8):69–82. Haruna A. Impact of physical workplace factors and psychosocial workplace factors on employees performance in selected state universities in North East, Nigeria. Int J Educational Res Libr Sci. 2024;4(8):69–82.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Forooraghi M, Miedema E, Ryd N, Wallbaum H. Scoping review of health in office design approaches. J Corp Real Estate. 2020;22(2):155–80.CrossRef Forooraghi M, Miedema E, Ryd N, Wallbaum H. Scoping review of health in office design approaches. J Corp Real Estate. 2020;22(2):155–80.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Van der Voordt T. Designing for health and wellbeing: various concepts, similar goals. Gestao Tecnologia De Projectos. 2021;16(4):13–31.CrossRef Van der Voordt T. Designing for health and wellbeing: various concepts, similar goals. Gestao Tecnologia De Projectos. 2021;16(4):13–31.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Cobaleda Cordero A, Babapour M, Karlsson M. Feel well and do well at work: a post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape. J Corp Real Estate. 2020;22(2):113–37.CrossRef Cobaleda Cordero A, Babapour M, Karlsson M. Feel well and do well at work: a post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape. J Corp Real Estate. 2020;22(2):113–37.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bauer AC. Pride and productivity–introducing and testing the Healing Offices® design concept. J Corp Real Estate. 2020;22(4):313–40.CrossRef Bauer AC. Pride and productivity–introducing and testing the Healing Offices® design concept. J Corp Real Estate. 2020;22(4):313–40.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Nelson EC, Holzer D, The Healthy Office Revolution.: A True Story of Burnout a Wake Up Call & Better Working Through Science. 2017. Nelson EC, Holzer D, The Healthy Office Revolution.: A True Story of Burnout a Wake Up Call & Better Working Through Science. 2017.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Frank J, Mustard C, Smith P, Siddiqi A, Cheng Y, Burdorf A, Rugulies R. Work as a social determinant of health in high-income countries: past, present, and future. Lancet. 2023;402(10410):1357–67.CrossRefPubMed Frank J, Mustard C, Smith P, Siddiqi A, Cheng Y, Burdorf A, Rugulies R. Work as a social determinant of health in high-income countries: past, present, and future. Lancet. 2023;402(10410):1357–67.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hodson R. Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 10. Hodson R. Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 10.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Lucas K. Workplace dignity: communicating inherent, earned, and remediated dignity. J Manage Stud. 2015;52(5):621–46.CrossRef Lucas K. Workplace dignity: communicating inherent, earned, and remediated dignity. J Manage Stud. 2015;52(5):621–46.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Joan Yalden B, McCormack B. Constructions of dignity: a pre-requisite for flourishing in the workplace? Int J Older People Nurs. 2010;5(2):137–47.CrossRefPubMed Joan Yalden B, McCormack B. Constructions of dignity: a pre-requisite for flourishing in the workplace? Int J Older People Nurs. 2010;5(2):137–47.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Stievano A, Marinis MG, Russo MT, Rocco G, Alvaro R. Professional dignity in nursing in clinical and community workplaces. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(3):341–56.CrossRefPubMed Stievano A, Marinis MG, Russo MT, Rocco G, Alvaro R. Professional dignity in nursing in clinical and community workplaces. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(3):341–56.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Combrinck Y, Van Wyk NC, Mogale RS. Preserving nurses’ professional dignity: six evidence-based strategies. Int Nurs Rev. 2022;69(1):106–13.CrossRefPubMed Combrinck Y, Van Wyk NC, Mogale RS. Preserving nurses’ professional dignity: six evidence-based strategies. Int Nurs Rev. 2022;69(1):106–13.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Jacobson N, Silva DS. Dignity promotion and beneficence. J Bioethical Inq. 2010;7:365–72.CrossRef Jacobson N, Silva DS. Dignity promotion and beneficence. J Bioethical Inq. 2010;7:365–72.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Abbasi A, Khachian A, Ebadi A, Bagheri H. Threats to professional dignity of Iranian clinical nurses: a qualitative study. Nurs Open. 2023;10(4):2366–75.CrossRefPubMed Abbasi A, Khachian A, Ebadi A, Bagheri H. Threats to professional dignity of Iranian clinical nurses: a qualitative study. Nurs Open. 2023;10(4):2366–75.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Najafi F, Fallahi-Khoshknab M, Ahmadi F, Dalvandi A, Rahgozar M. Human dignity and professional reputation under threat: Iranian nurses’ experiences of workplace violence. Nurs Health Sci. 2017;19(1):44–50.CrossRefPubMed Najafi F, Fallahi-Khoshknab M, Ahmadi F, Dalvandi A, Rahgozar M. Human dignity and professional reputation under threat: Iranian nurses’ experiences of workplace violence. Nurs Health Sci. 2017;19(1):44–50.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Khademi M, Mohammadi E, Vanaki Z. Nurses’ experiences of violation of their dignity. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(3):328–40.CrossRefPubMed Khademi M, Mohammadi E, Vanaki Z. Nurses’ experiences of violation of their dignity. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(3):328–40.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Froneman C, Wyk NC, Mogale RS. Enhancing the professional dignity of midwives: a phenomenological study. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(4):1062–74.CrossRefPubMed Froneman C, Wyk NC, Mogale RS. Enhancing the professional dignity of midwives: a phenomenological study. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(4):1062–74.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Houck NM, Colbert AM. Patient safety and workplace bullying: an integrative review. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017;32(2):164–71.CrossRefPubMed Houck NM, Colbert AM. Patient safety and workplace bullying: an integrative review. J Nurs Care Qual. 2017;32(2):164–71.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallagher A. Dignity and respect for dignity-two key health professional values: implications for nursing practice. Nurs Ethics. 2004;11(6):587–99.CrossRefPubMed Gallagher A. Dignity and respect for dignity-two key health professional values: implications for nursing practice. Nurs Ethics. 2004;11(6):587–99.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Fowler M. Duties to self: the nurse as a person of dignity and worth. Creat Nurs. 2018;24(3):152–7.CrossRefPubMed Fowler M. Duties to self: the nurse as a person of dignity and worth. Creat Nurs. 2018;24(3):152–7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Milton CL. The American Nurses Association Code of Ethics: a reflection on the ethics of respect and human dignity with a nurse as an expert. Nurs Sci Q. 2003;16(4):301–4.CrossRefPubMed Milton CL. The American Nurses Association Code of Ethics: a reflection on the ethics of respect and human dignity with a nurse as an expert. Nurs Sci Q. 2003;16(4):301–4.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Purser G. The dignity of job-seeking men: boundary work among immigrant day laborers. J Contemp Ethnography. 2009;38(1):117–39.CrossRef Purser G. The dignity of job-seeking men: boundary work among immigrant day laborers. J Contemp Ethnography. 2009;38(1):117–39.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Nelson JL, Lewis AE. I’ma teacher, not a babysitter: workers’ strategies for managing identity-related denials of dignity in the early childhood workplace. In Research in the sociology of work 2016 Aug 19 (pp. 37–71). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Nelson JL, Lewis AE. I’ma teacher, not a babysitter: workers’ strategies for managing identity-related denials of dignity in the early childhood workplace. In Research in the sociology of work 2016 Aug 19 (pp. 37–71). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Baker SJ, Lucas K. Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity. Can J Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sci De l’Administration. 2017;34(2):133–48.CrossRef Baker SJ, Lucas K. Is it safe to bring myself to work? Understanding LGBTQ experiences of workplace dignity. Can J Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sci De l’Administration. 2017;34(2):133–48.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Rabelo V. Cleaning the ivory tower:(De) constructing neoliberal discourse and dignity in dirty work (Doctoral dissertation). Rabelo V. Cleaning the ivory tower:(De) constructing neoliberal discourse and dignity in dirty work (Doctoral dissertation).
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Crowley M. Control and dignity in professional, manual, and service-sector employment. Organ Stud. 2012;33(10):1383–406.CrossRef Crowley M. Control and dignity in professional, manual, and service-sector employment. Organ Stud. 2012;33(10):1383–406.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Crowley M. Gender, the labor process, and dignity at work. Soc Forces. 2013;91(4):1209–38.CrossRef Crowley M. Gender, the labor process, and dignity at work. Soc Forces. 2013;91(4):1209–38.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Crowley M. Class, control, and relational indignity: labor process foundations for workplace humiliation, conflict, and shame. Am Behav Sci. 2014;58(3):416–34.CrossRef Crowley M. Class, control, and relational indignity: labor process foundations for workplace humiliation, conflict, and shame. Am Behav Sci. 2014;58(3):416–34.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Hodson R. Dignity in the workplace under participative management: alienation and freedom revisited. Am Sociol Rev. 1996 Oct;1:719–38. Hodson R. Dignity in the workplace under participative management: alienation and freedom revisited. Am Sociol Rev. 1996 Oct;1:719–38.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hodson R, Roscigno VJ. Organizational success and worker dignity: complementary or contradictory? Am J Sociol. 2004;110(3):672–708.CrossRef Hodson R, Roscigno VJ. Organizational success and worker dignity: complementary or contradictory? Am J Sociol. 2004;110(3):672–708.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Lucas K, Manikas AS, Mattingly ES, Crider CJ. Engaging and misbehaving: how dignity affects employee work behaviors. Organ Stud. 2017;38(11):1505–27.CrossRef Lucas K, Manikas AS, Mattingly ES, Crider CJ. Engaging and misbehaving: how dignity affects employee work behaviors. Organ Stud. 2017;38(11):1505–27.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Thomas B, Lucas K. Development and validation of the workplace dignity scale. Group Organ Manage. 2019;44(1):72–111.CrossRef Thomas B, Lucas K. Development and validation of the workplace dignity scale. Group Organ Manage. 2019;44(1):72–111.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Scott-Campbell C, Williams M. Validating the workplace dignity scale. Collabra: Psychol. 2020;6(1):31.CrossRef Scott-Campbell C, Williams M. Validating the workplace dignity scale. Collabra: Psychol. 2020;6(1):31.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Sainz M, Moreno-Bella E, Torres‐Vega LC. Perceived unequal and unfair workplaces trigger lower job satisfaction and lower workers’ dignity via organizational dehumanization and workers’ self‐objectification. Eur J Social Psychol. 2023;53(5):921–38.CrossRef Sainz M, Moreno-Bella E, Torres‐Vega LC. Perceived unequal and unfair workplaces trigger lower job satisfaction and lower workers’ dignity via organizational dehumanization and workers’ self‐objectification. Eur J Social Psychol. 2023;53(5):921–38.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Teixeira ML, das Graças Torres Paz M, Alves SS. Dignity and well-being at work. Organizational Dignity and Evidence-Based Management: New Perspectives. 2021:271 – 81. Teixeira ML, das Graças Torres Paz M, Alves SS. Dignity and well-being at work. Organizational Dignity and Evidence-Based Management: New Perspectives. 2021:271 – 81.
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Pahlevan Sharif S, Ahadzadeh AS, Sharif Nia H. Mediating role of psychological well-being in the relationship between organizational support and nurses’ outcomes: a cross‐sectional study. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(4):887–99.CrossRefPubMed Pahlevan Sharif S, Ahadzadeh AS, Sharif Nia H. Mediating role of psychological well-being in the relationship between organizational support and nurses’ outcomes: a cross‐sectional study. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(4):887–99.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Moloney W, Fieldes J, Jacobs S. An integrative review of how healthcare organizations can support hospital nurses to thrive at work. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):8757.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Moloney W, Fieldes J, Jacobs S. An integrative review of how healthcare organizations can support hospital nurses to thrive at work. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):8757.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Fiabane E, Giorgi I, Sguazzin C, Argentero P. Work engagement and occupational stress in nurses and other healthcare workers: the role of organizational and personal factors. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(17–18):2614–24.CrossRefPubMed Fiabane E, Giorgi I, Sguazzin C, Argentero P. Work engagement and occupational stress in nurses and other healthcare workers: the role of organizational and personal factors. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(17–18):2614–24.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Faulkner J, Laschinger H. The effects of structural and psychological empowerment on perceived respect in acute care nurses. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2008;16(2):214–21.CrossRef Faulkner J, Laschinger H. The effects of structural and psychological empowerment on perceived respect in acute care nurses. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2008;16(2):214–21.CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Purdy N, Spence Laschinger HK, Finegan J, Kerr M, Olivera F. Effects of work environments on nurse and patient outcomes. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2010;18(8):901–13.CrossRef Purdy N, Spence Laschinger HK, Finegan J, Kerr M, Olivera F. Effects of work environments on nurse and patient outcomes. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2010;18(8):901–13.CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Weller JM, Barrow M, Gasquoine S. Interprofessional collaboration among junior doctors and nurses in the hospital setting. Med Educ. 2011;45(5):478–87.CrossRefPubMed Weller JM, Barrow M, Gasquoine S. Interprofessional collaboration among junior doctors and nurses in the hospital setting. Med Educ. 2011;45(5):478–87.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Sabatino L, Stievano A, Rocco G, Kallio H, Pietila AM, Kangasniemi MK. The dignity of the nursing profession: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Nurs Ethics. 2014;21(6):659–72.CrossRefPubMed Sabatino L, Stievano A, Rocco G, Kallio H, Pietila AM, Kangasniemi MK. The dignity of the nursing profession: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Nurs Ethics. 2014;21(6):659–72.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Bournes DA, Milton CL. Nurses’ experiences of feeling respected—not respected. Nurs Sci Q. 2009;22(1):47–56.CrossRefPubMed Bournes DA, Milton CL. Nurses’ experiences of feeling respected—not respected. Nurs Sci Q. 2009;22(1):47–56.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Vessey JA, DeMarco R, DiFazio R. Bullying, harassment, and horizontal violence in the nursing workforce the state of the science. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2010;28(1):133–57.CrossRefPubMed Vessey JA, DeMarco R, DiFazio R. Bullying, harassment, and horizontal violence in the nursing workforce the state of the science. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2010;28(1):133–57.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Ceravolo DJ, Schwartz DG, FOLTZ-RAMOS KM, Castner J. Strengthening communication to overcome lateral violence. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2012;20(5):599–606.CrossRef Ceravolo DJ, Schwartz DG, FOLTZ-RAMOS KM, Castner J. Strengthening communication to overcome lateral violence. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2012;20(5):599–606.CrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibson C, Thomason B, Margolis J, Groves K, Gibson S, Franczak J. Dignity inherent and earned: the experience of dignity at work. Acad Manag Ann. 2023;17(1):218–67.CrossRef Gibson C, Thomason B, Margolis J, Groves K, Gibson S, Franczak J. Dignity inherent and earned: the experience of dignity at work. Acad Manag Ann. 2023;17(1):218–67.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Griffin MA. Dispositions and work reactions: a multilevel approach. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(6):1142.CrossRefPubMed Griffin MA. Dispositions and work reactions: a multilevel approach. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(6):1142.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Malik IA, Shabu SA, Saleh AM, Shabila NP. Health employees’ perceptions of their working conditions. Asia Pac J Health Manage. 2023;18(1):216–23. Malik IA, Shabu SA, Saleh AM, Shabila NP. Health employees’ perceptions of their working conditions. Asia Pac J Health Manage. 2023;18(1):216–23.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Imonikhe A. Organizational environment and the impact of cultural, social, and personal factors on employee job satisfaction and performance. World J Adv Res Reviews. 2024;21(1):2871–82.CrossRef Imonikhe A. Organizational environment and the impact of cultural, social, and personal factors on employee job satisfaction and performance. World J Adv Res Reviews. 2024;21(1):2871–82.CrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Elaswarapu R. Dignity at work: policies and legislative framework. Clin Risk. 2016;22(3–4):46–50.CrossRef Elaswarapu R. Dignity at work: policies and legislative framework. Clin Risk. 2016;22(3–4):46–50.CrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Liden RC, Anand S, Vidyarthi P. Dyadic relationships. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2016;3(1):139–66.CrossRef Liden RC, Anand S, Vidyarthi P. Dyadic relationships. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2016;3(1):139–66.CrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Stephens JP, Kanov J. Stories as artworks: giving form to felt dignity in connections at work. J Bus Ethics. 2017;144:235–49.CrossRef Stephens JP, Kanov J. Stories as artworks: giving form to felt dignity in connections at work. J Bus Ethics. 2017;144:235–49.CrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Lawless J, Moss C. Exploring the value of dignity in the work-life of nurses. Contemp Nurse. 2007;24(2):225–36.CrossRefPubMed Lawless J, Moss C. Exploring the value of dignity in the work-life of nurses. Contemp Nurse. 2007;24(2):225–36.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Hall JM, Stevens PE, Meleis AI, Marginalization. A guiding concept for valuing diversity in nursing knowledge development. Adv Nurs Sci. 1994;16(4):23–41.CrossRef Hall JM, Stevens PE, Meleis AI, Marginalization. A guiding concept for valuing diversity in nursing knowledge development. Adv Nurs Sci. 1994;16(4):23–41.CrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Englund HM, MacWilliams B, Mott JA, Critical Minority. The marginalization of male Faculty in nursing academia. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2023;44(5):285–90.CrossRefPubMed Englund HM, MacWilliams B, Mott JA, Critical Minority. The marginalization of male Faculty in nursing academia. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2023;44(5):285–90.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Almutairi AF, McCarthy A, Gardner GE. Understanding cultural competence in a multicultural nursing workforce: registered nurses’ experience in Saudi Arabia. J Transcult Nurs. 2015;26(1):16–23.CrossRefPubMed Almutairi AF, McCarthy A, Gardner GE. Understanding cultural competence in a multicultural nursing workforce: registered nurses’ experience in Saudi Arabia. J Transcult Nurs. 2015;26(1):16–23.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Almutairi AF, Gardner G, McCarthy A. Perceptions of clinical safety climate of the multicultural nursing workforce in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional survey. Collegian. 2013;20(3):187–94.CrossRefPubMed Almutairi AF, Gardner G, McCarthy A. Perceptions of clinical safety climate of the multicultural nursing workforce in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional survey. Collegian. 2013;20(3):187–94.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Najafi B, Seidi J, Modanloo S, Fahimi V. Dignity and respect for nurses with different levels of experience from physicians, colleagues, patients, and their family members. J Nurs Midwifery Sci. 2015;2:18–24. Najafi B, Seidi J, Modanloo S, Fahimi V. Dignity and respect for nurses with different levels of experience from physicians, colleagues, patients, and their family members. J Nurs Midwifery Sci. 2015;2:18–24.
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Amudha P, Hamidah H, Annamma K, Ananth N. Effective communication between nurses and doctors: barriers as perceived by nurses. J Nurs Care. 2018;7(03):1–6. Amudha P, Hamidah H, Annamma K, Ananth N. Effective communication between nurses and doctors: barriers as perceived by nurses. J Nurs Care. 2018;7(03):1–6.
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Sawafta FJ, Mao J, Tian C, QiaoHuang WZ, Hu D, Zeng T, Gong Y. Factors contributing to the stress levels of nurses in Chinese hospitals. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2016;7(10):5–14. Sawafta FJ, Mao J, Tian C, QiaoHuang WZ, Hu D, Zeng T, Gong Y. Factors contributing to the stress levels of nurses in Chinese hospitals. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2016;7(10):5–14.
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Baloyi TS, Ramathuba DU, Netshisaulu KG. Experiences of workplace environment of neophyte registered nurses in selected hospitals of Limpopo province, South Africa. SA J Hum Resource Manage. 2024;22:2142.CrossRef Baloyi TS, Ramathuba DU, Netshisaulu KG. Experiences of workplace environment of neophyte registered nurses in selected hospitals of Limpopo province, South Africa. SA J Hum Resource Manage. 2024;22:2142.CrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Klinner C, Dario AB, Bell A, Nisbet G, Penman M, Monrouxe LV. Beyond mere respect: new perspectives on dignity for healthcare workplace learning. Front Med. 2024;10:1274364.CrossRef Klinner C, Dario AB, Bell A, Nisbet G, Penman M, Monrouxe LV. Beyond mere respect: new perspectives on dignity for healthcare workplace learning. Front Med. 2024;10:1274364.CrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarkar A. Self-dignity amidst adversity: a review of coping strategies in the face of workplace toxicity. Manage Rev Q 2024 Jan 3:1–30. Sarkar A. Self-dignity amidst adversity: a review of coping strategies in the face of workplace toxicity. Manage Rev Q 2024 Jan 3:1–30.
Metadaten
Titel
Workplace dignity amongst clinical nurses
verfasst von
Jennifer de Beer
Hawazen Rawas
Wadea Beheri
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2024
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Nursing / Ausgabe 1/2024
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6955
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02376-z