Objective The aim of this study is to determine nurse managers’ perceptions of their work environment and the factors influencing these perceptions. Method This descriptive and cross-sectional study included 407 nurse managers working in Turkey. Data were collected using a demographic information form and the “Managerial Nurse Work Environment Scale (MNWES)”. The data were analyzed using the SPSS 22.0 and Jamovi 2.7.18 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) software package. Descriptive statistical values were presented as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using Skewness and Kurtosis values, and the variables were found to be normally distributed. Parametric methods were used in the analysis of the data. Independent groups t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc (Turkey, LSD) analyses were used to compare the mean scale and subscale scores according to the participants’ descriptive characteristics. The relationship between the subscales was examined using Pearson correlation analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated to assess scale reliability. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05. To assess the effect sizes of the variables the chi-square or partial chi-square (for ANOVA) tests, Cohen’s d (for t-tests), and A multiple linear regression analysis was were performed. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, and correlations were calculated for all sub-dimensions. The article was prepared in accordance with the STROBE guidelines. Ethical committee approval and informed consent from participants were obtained to conduct the study. Findings The mean MNWES score for nurse managers was 4.82 ± 0.63. Gender, education level/title, perceived income status, type and duration of administrative duties, administrative unit/hospital, receipt of management training, susceptibility to the work environment, and satisfaction level were found to affect the mean MNWES scores (p < 0.05). In particular, it was determined that the level of satisfaction with the role showed a highly significant and high difference in all sub-dimensions of the MNWES and that the satisfaction status significantly affected the scores (p < 0.001). The level of influence of the environment also showed a significant difference in all sub-dimensions of MNWES and was found to significantly affect the scores (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between those who received management training and those who did not in subscales 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the MNWES (p < 0.05). When examined in terms of the effect sizes of the variables, job satisfaction (η² ≈ 0.09–0.16), having received management training (d ≈ 0.21–0.26), holding the titles of specialist or doctor (d ≈ 0.46), job position (d ≈ 0.26–0.31) and susceptibility to the environment (η² ≈ 0.05) can be said to produce more significant differences in certain sub-dimensions compared to other variables. Conclusion It was found that participants perceived their working environment positively, and that, among the factors influencing this perception, job satisfaction, the impact of the environment, and whether they had received management training showed more significant differences compared to other variables. Considering the factors affecting the work environment perceptions of nurse managers in achieving institutional goals in terms of patient care, it is recommended that supportive policies be developed.

Evaluations of nurse managers’ work environment: a descriptive study

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年6月3日

查看全文

Aynur Yazici Sorucuoğlu,
Metin Dinçer

摘要

Objective

The aim of this study is to determine nurse managers’ perceptions of their work environment and the factors influencing these perceptions.

Method

This descriptive and cross-sectional study included 407 nurse managers working in Turkey. Data were collected using a demographic information form and the “Managerial Nurse Work Environment Scale (MNWES)”. The data were analyzed using the SPSS 22.0 and Jamovi 2.7.18 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) software package. Descriptive statistical values were presented as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using Skewness and Kurtosis values, and the variables were found to be normally distributed. Parametric methods were used in the analysis of the data. Independent groups t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc (Turkey, LSD) analyses were used to compare the mean scale and subscale scores according to the participants’ descriptive characteristics. The relationship between the subscales was examined using Pearson correlation analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated to assess scale reliability. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05. To assess the effect sizes of the variables the chi-square or partial chi-square (for ANOVA) tests, Cohen’s d (for t-tests), and A multiple linear regression analysis was were performed. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, and correlations were calculated for all sub-dimensions. The article was prepared in accordance with the STROBE guidelines. Ethical committee approval and informed consent from participants were obtained to conduct the study.

Findings

The mean MNWES score for nurse managers was 4.82 ± 0.63. Gender, education level/title, perceived income status, type and duration of administrative duties, administrative unit/hospital, receipt of management training, susceptibility to the work environment, and satisfaction level were found to affect the mean MNWES scores (p < 0.05). In particular, it was determined that the level of satisfaction with the role showed a highly significant and high difference in all sub-dimensions of the MNWES and that the satisfaction status significantly affected the scores (p < 0.001). The level of influence of the environment also showed a significant difference in all sub-dimensions of MNWES and was found to significantly affect the scores (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between those who received management training and those who did not in subscales 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the MNWES (p < 0.05). When examined in terms of the effect sizes of the variables, job satisfaction (η² ≈ 0.09–0.16), having received management training (d ≈ 0.21–0.26), holding the titles of specialist or doctor (d ≈ 0.46), job position (d ≈ 0.26–0.31) and susceptibility to the environment (η² ≈ 0.05) can be said to produce more significant differences in certain sub-dimensions compared to other variables.

Conclusion

It was found that participants perceived their working environment positively, and that, among the factors influencing this perception, job satisfaction, the impact of the environment, and whether they had received management training showed more significant differences compared to other variables. Considering the factors affecting the work environment perceptions of nurse managers in achieving institutional goals in terms of patient care, it is recommended that supportive policies be developed.