Cross-sectional study explores how professional benefits mediate stress and practice ability in ICU nurses, suggesting improvements for patient care.
Aim To Explore the Function and Mechanism of Professional Benefits on ICU Nurses' Stressors and Their Humanistic Practice Ability. Design A cross‐sectional study was conducted. Methods A total of 257 ICU nurses from nine tertiary and five secondary hospitals in Shanghai were recruited from December 2023 to January 2024 using convenience sampling. The study utilised a general data questionnaire, a humanistic practice ability scale, a nurse's work stressor scale, and a professional benefit scale for investigation and analysis. Results The scores of ICU nurses' professional benefits, nurses' work stressors, and humanistic practice ability were 61.33 ± 22.21, 70.13 ± 15.70, and 105.96 ± 18.26. Nurse's work stressors were negatively correlated with humanistic practice ability and professional benefits; professional benefits were positively correlated with humanistic practice ability. Professional benefit played a mediating role between nurses' work stressors and humanistic practice ability. Conclusions ICU nurses' professional benefits were the mediating variable between stress and humanistic practice ability. ICU nursing managers should pay attention to optimising the working environment of ICU nurses to reduce work pressure, improve nurses' professional benefits, promote ICU nurses' humanistic quality and humanistic practice ability, and better meet the needs of severe patients. Implications for the Profession We suggest that medical institutions and managers should implement targeted strategies to enhance nurses' perception of professional benefits and working environment to enhance their perception of career benefits. Therefore, it is essential to identify the current situation and relationship between ICU nurses' professional benefits, nurse's work stressors and humanistic practice ability. Patient or Public Contribution No patient or public contribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: