Background: Nurses’ work engagement is an important determinant of nursing performance, staff well-being, and healthcare quality. Psychological empowerment may contribute to work engagement by strengthening nurses’ sense of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact in their work. Objective: This study aimed to examine the relationship between psychological empowerment and work engagement among nurses working in the Second Health Cluster in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among nurses working in the Second Health Cluster. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires measuring psychological empowerment and work engagement. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the associations between psychological empowerment, its dimensions, and work engagement. Results: The mean total psychological empowerment score was 41.48 ± 11.11 (possible range: 12–60), corresponding to a mean item score of 3.46 ± 0.93 on the 5-point response scale. Psychological empowerment was positively associated with work engagement in the simple regression model, which explained 57.0% of the variance in work engagement (R2 = 0.570, p < 0.001). In the multiple regression model, which included the four psychological empowerment dimensions, the explained variance was 57.5% (R2 = 0.575). Meaning (β = 0.293, p < 0.001), impact (β = 0.268, p < 0.001), and self-determination (β = 0.160, p = 0.016) were statistically significant independent correlates of work engagement, whereas competence was not statistically significant after adjustment for the other dimensions (β = 0.103, p = 0.117). Conclusions: Psychological empowerment was positively associated with nurses’ work engagement. Meaning, impact, and self-determination showed statistically significant associations when the four dimensions were examined simultaneously. These findings highlight the potential relevance of empowerment-related workplace practices while requiring cautious interpretation because of the cross-sectional design and sampling approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alanazy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: