Cross-sectional study reveals future work self-salience associates with perceived professional benefits in nursing interns, highlighting the mediating roles of belongingness and deep acting.
Objective This study examined whether future work self-salience was associated with perceived professional benefits among nursing interns and whether clinical belongingness and deep acting were involved as independent and serial mediators in this association. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 641 nursing interns recruited from six higher education institutions in Guangxi, China (March–April 2026). Measures included future work self-salience (4 items), clinical belongingness (17 items), deep acting (3 items), and perceived professional benefits (29 items). Descriptive statistics, univariate analyses, and correlation analyses were performed. A structural equation model was estimated and a bootstrap procedure with 5,000 resamples tested indirect associations while adjusting for demographic covariates. Results All study variables were positively correlated (all p < 0.01). The chain mediation model demonstrated good fit ( χ 2 /df = 2.73, RMSEA = 0.05, GFI = 0.99, AGFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98). Future work self-salience had a significant direct association with perceived professional benefits ( B = 1.146, 95% CI: 0.891–1.401). Significant indirect associations were observed through clinical belongingness ( B = 1.251, 95% CI: 0.963–1.553), through deep acting ( B = 0.045, 95% CI: 0.005–0.107), and through the sequential pathway of clinical belongingness and deep acting ( B = 0.039, 95% CI: 0.009–0.084). The total indirect association accounted for 53.81% of the total association. Conclusion Future work self-salience was associated with higher perceived professional benefits among nursing interns, both directly and indirectly through clinical belongingness and deep acting. These findings are consistent with the hypothesized serial mediation model, although causal inferences cannot be made due to the cross-sectional design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Du et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: