Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resilience in the operating room: developing and testing of a resilience model

Gillespie, Brigid M., Chaboyer, Wendy, Wallis, Marianne, Grimbeek, Peter·2007·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Title. Resilience in the operating room: developing and testing of a resilience model Aim. This paper is a report of a study to examine the relation of perceived competence, collaboration, control, self‐efficacy, hope, coping, age, experience, education and years of employment to resilience in operating room (OR) nurses. Background. Resilience is viewed as a vital attribute for nurses because it augments adaptation in demanding and volatile clinical environments such as ORs. However, there has been little research into the utility of resilience as a means of dealing with workplace stress, and there is only limited understanding of variables that explain resilience in the context of nursing. Method. A correlational cross‐sectional survey design was used. Of a national sample of 2860 Australian OR nurses, 1430 were selected by systematic random sampling and invited to complete a questionnaire in 2006. The instrument included scales measuring perceived competence, collaboration, control, self‐efficacy, hope, coping and resilience, and gathered information about the demographic characteristics of respondents. Results. Two regression models were used to develop a model of resilience. An initial model tested the hypothesis that a set of 12 explanatory variables contributed to resilience in OR nurses. Five variables (hope, self‐efficacy, coping, control and competence) explained resilience at statistically significant levels. Age, experience, education and years of employment did not contribute to resilience at statistically significant levels. The final model explained 60% of the variance. In both models, the strongest explanatory variables were hope, self‐efficacy and coping. Conclusion. Identification of explanatory variables that contribute to resilience in ORs may assist in implementing strategies that promote these behaviours, and thus retain nurses in this specialty.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04340.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M., & Grimbeek, P.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-07-02
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
427-438
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2105436501
Cited by
290
References
3
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Resilience in the operating room: developing and testing of a resilience model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04340.x
The paper
Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M., & Grimbeek, P. (2007). Resilience in the operating room: developing and testing of a resilience model. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04340.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.