↓ Skip to main content

The determinants and consequences of adult nursing staff turnover: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The determinants and consequences of adult nursing staff turnover: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2707-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Halter, Olga Boiko, Ferruccio Pelone, Carole Beighton, Ruth Harris, Julia Gale, Stephen Gourlay, Vari Drennan

Abstract

Nurses leaving their jobs and the profession are an issue of international concern, with supply-demand gaps for nurses reported to be widening. There is a large body of existing literature, much of which is already in review form. In order to advance the usefulness of the literature for nurse and human resource managers, we undertook an overview (review of systematic reviews). The aim of the overview was to identify high quality evidence of the determinants and consequences of turnover in adult nursing. Reviews were identified which were published between 1990 and January 2015 in English using electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, CINAHL plus and SCOPUS) and forward searching. All stages of the review were conducted in parallel by two reviewers. Reviews were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews and their findings narratively synthesised. Nine reviews were included. We found that the current evidence is incomplete and has a number of important limitations. However, a body of moderate quality review evidence does exist giving a picture of multiple determinants of turnover in adult nursing, with - at the individual level - nurse stress and dissatisfaction being important factors and -at the organisational level - managerial style and supervisory support factors holding most weight. The consequences of turnover are only described in economic terms, but are considered significant. In making a quality assessment of the review as well as considering the quality of the included primary studies and specificity in the outcomes they measure, the overview found that the evidence is not as definitive as previously presented from individual reviews. Further research is required, of rigorous research design, whether quantitative or qualitative, particularly against the outcome of actual turnover as opposed to intention to leave. PROSPERO Registration 17 March 2015: CRD42015017613 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 315 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 10%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 7%
Other 52 17%
Unknown 87 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 104 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 22 7%
Social Sciences 17 5%
Psychology 14 4%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 94 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#872,398
of 20,618,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#223
of 6,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,018
of 437,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#27
of 568 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,618,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 568 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.