The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: the Minnesota Nurses’ Study
Open accessAbstract
Aims:To identify the magnitude of and potential risk factors for violence within a major occupational population. Methods:Comprehensive surveys were sent to 6300 Minnesota licensed registered (RNs) and practical (LPNs) nurses to collect data on physical and non-physical violence for the prior 12 months. Re-weighting enabled adjustment for potential biases associated with non-response, accounting for unknown eligibility. Results:From the 78% responding, combined with non-response rate information, respective adjusted rates per 100 persons per year (95% CI) for physical and non-physical violence were 13.2 (12.2 to 14.3) and 38.8 (37.4 to 40.4); assault rates were increased, respectively, for LPNs versus RNs (16.4 and 12.0) and males versus females (19.4 and 12.9). Perpetrators of physical and non-physical events were patients/clients (97% and 67%, respectively). Consequences appeared greater for non-physical than physical violence. Multivariate modelling identified increased rates for both physical and non-physical violence for working: in a nursing home/long term care facility; in intensive care, psychiatric/behavioural or emergency departments; and with geriatric patients. Conclusions:Results show that non-fatal physical assault and non-physical forms of violence, and relevant consequences, are frequent among both RNs and LPNs; such violence is mostly perpetrated by patients or clients; and certain environmental factors appear to affect the risk of violence. This serves as the basis for further analytical studies that can enable the development of appropriate prevention and control efforts.
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.
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
Hernan, M. A. (2002) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/155.2.176 · Cited by 1,445
Cited by
Workplace Violence Against Nursing Students and Nurses: An Italian Experience
Magnavita, N., & Heponiemi, T. (2011) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2011.01392.x · Cited by 296
Violence risks in nursing--results from the European 'NEXT' Study
Estryn-Behar, M., van der Heijden, B., Camerino, D., Fry, C., Le Nezet, O., Conway, P. M., Hasselhorn, H.-M., & the NEXT Study group (2008) · Occupational Medicine · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqm142 · Cited by 284
Zhao, S., Xie, F., Wang, J., Shi, Y., Zhang, S., Han, X., Sun, Z., Shi, L., Li, Z., Mu, H., et al. (2018) · Archives of Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2017.11.009 · Cited by 115
Yang, Y., Wang, P., Kelifa, M. O., Wang, B., Liu, M., Lu, L., & Wang, W. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13325 · Cited by 73
Laeeque, S. H., Bilal, A., Babar, S., Khan, Z., & Ul Rahman, S. (2018) · Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma · doi:10.1080/10926771.2017.1410751 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerberich, S. G., Church, T. R., McGovern, P. M., Hansen, H. E., Nachreiner, N. M., Geisser, M. S., Ryan, A. D., Mongin, S. J., & Watt, G. D.
- Venue
- Occupational and Environmental Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-05-18
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 495-503
- ISSN
- 0007-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1351-0711
- 1470-7926
- OpenAlex
- W2139349750
- Cited by
- 537
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: the Minnesota Nurses’ Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/oem.2003.007294
- The paper
- Gerberich, S. G., Church, T. R., McGovern, P. M., Hansen, H. E., Nachreiner, N. M., Geisser, M. S., Ryan, A. D., Mongin, S. J., & Watt, G. D. (2004). An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: the Minnesota Nurses’ Study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2003.007294
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.