The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Influence of perceived stress and workload on work engagement in front‐line nurses during COVID‐19 pandemic
Open accessAbstract
Aims and objectives: To clarify both the potential influencing factors and the current status of front‐line nurses’ work engagement, and thus provide a reference for targeted interventions. Background: After coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, front‐line nurses embraced remarkable potential stress and huge workload when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 patients, which may lead to new challenges to work engagement. Design: A large sample survey was conducted at the end of February 2020 in a designated hospital treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei Province, in China. t Test, one‐way ANOVA, chi‐squared test, Pearson's correlation and hierarchical multiple regression were performed among 1,040 nurses using SPSS 24.0. The STROBE checklist was followed for observational studies. Results: The final model interpreted 27.3% of the variance, of which each block could explain 11.7%, 10.3% and 7.9% R 2 changes including sociodemographic characteristics, stress and workload, respectively. Work engagement was negatively correlated with stress and workload. The potential influencing factors included sociodemographic characteristics (married, rescue staff, cabin ward), stress (infection control, PPE discomfort) and workload (mental demand, performance, frustration). Conclusions: Front‐line nurses perceived low stress and workload, but high work engagement, especially in self‐dedication. However, infection control, PPE discomfort and frustration were negatively associated with nurses’ work engagement, while mental demand and good performance were positively associated with nurses’ work engagement. Future interventions focused on decreasing front‐line staff's infection risk and enhancing their self‐confidence may be recommendable to promote their work engagement.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The increased workload and psychological distress during the COVID‐19 pandemic can further decrease work engagement in frontline nurses potentially influencing the provision of quality of care (Zhang et al., 2021).”
From Beyond the physical risk: Psychosocial impact and coping in healthcare professionals during the COVID‐19 pandemic. (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2021
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
Maslow, A. H. (1943) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0054346 · Cited by 21,563 · cited 2×
“According to Maslow's hierarchy theory (Maslow, 1943), the priority should ensure adequate PPE supply to meet the fundamental needs of front- line nurses, finally increasing their work engagement to fulfil self- actualisation.”
MethodDevelopment of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho, C. S., & Ho, R. C. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17051729 · Cited by 9,923
NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later
Hart, S. G. (2006) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193120605000909 · Cited by 4,297 · cited 1×
“Each dimension scores from 0 to 20, resulting in a total scale score between 0– 120 by summarising the six items (Hart, 2006).”
BackgroundTrépanier, S.-G., Forest, J., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2015) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678373.2015.1074957 · Cited by 178
Basit, A. A. (2017) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.2017.1372350 · Cited by 100
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30309-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05859.x · DOI
- Berka C., 2007, EEG correlates of task engagement and mental workload in vigilance, learning, and memory tasks, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 78, B231
- Chuang P. Y., 2005, Psychometric evaluation of the stress scale of caring for highly infectious disease patients among health care workers ‐ Based on SARS, Taiwan Journal of Public Health, 24, 420
- 10.1111/jocn.12084 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12529-011-9173-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.003 · DOI
- 10.1111/jonm.12312 · DOI
- 10.1111/jocn.14740 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62390-0 · DOI
- 10.1080/19488300.2011.609524 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.abb5793 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00907.x · DOI
- Littman‐Ovadia H., 2013, Psychometric properties of the Hebrew version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES‐9), European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 155
- 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30204-7 · DOI
- 10.1111/jjns.12003 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01448.x · DOI
- 10.1080/00223980.2018.1536639 · DOI
- 10.2519/jospt.2015.0108 · DOI
- 10.4037/ccn2020946 · DOI
- Schaufeli W. B., 2003, Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual, Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 26, 64‐000
- 10.1177/0969733007071350 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.032 · DOI
- 10.4236/psych.2015.62015 · DOI
- 10.1177/1744987110383353 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04341.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.aucc.2017.05.001 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0197599 · DOI
- 10.1111/jan.13528 · DOI
- 10.1111/nhs.12424 · DOI
- Xiao Y., 2005, The appraisal of reliability and validity of subjective workload assessment technique and NASA‐task load index, Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, 23, 178
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fteropoulli, T., Kalavana, T. V., Yiallourou, A., Karaiskakis, M., Koliou Mazeri, M., Vryonides, S., Hadjioannou, A., & Nikolopoulos, G. K. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.15938 · Cited by 42
“The increased workload and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic can further decrease work engagement in frontline nurses potentially influencing the provision of quality of care (Zhang et al., 2021 ).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, M., zhang, P., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Hu, K., & Du, M.
- Affiliations
- Tongji Hospital (CN)
- Corresponding author
- zhang, Ping
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-02-27
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 11-12
- Pages
- 1584-1595
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- PMC
- PMC8014711
- OpenAlex
- W3130471620
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 12
- FWCI
- 22.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Keywords
- work engagement, perceived stress, workload, frontline nurses, COVID-19 pandemic, infection control, mental demand, frustration, sociodemographic factors, occupational stress
- MeSH terms
- Work Engagement, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Nurses, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Workload, Pandemics
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
