Environmental Health Practice and Quality of Nursing Care: A Protocol for Systematic Review
HTML (Português (Brasil))

Supplementary Files



Quality of Health Care
Nursing Care
Professional Practice

PlumX Metrics


Objectives: To systematically synthesize studies that analyze the relationship between a healthy practice environment and quality of nursing care in hospital settings; to identify the most commonly used instruments to assess nurses’ perceptions of a healthy practice environment; to identify the most commonly used instruments to assess nurses’ perceptions of quality of nursing care. Method: A systematic literature review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature search will be conducted in the principal databases. Review of international scientific articles published in the last ten years, accessed through the database of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar (ICBAS), University of Porto, on nurses’ perceptions of the influence of the environment on healthy nursing practice and quality of care. Inclusion: Articles published after 2012 in Portuguese, Spanish, and English. The identified, selected, and included studies will be highlighted for the selection process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). If possible, quantitative data will be pooled into a meta-analysis using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MASTARI).

HTML (Português (Brasil))


Thew J. HealthLeaders magazine. Top 5 Nurse Leadership Issues for 2020 [Internet].2020 [cited 2023 Jun 1] Available from: https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/nursing/top-5-nurse-leadership-issues-20202.

Cantaert GR, Pype P, Valcke M, Lauwerier E. Interprofessional Identity in Health and Social Care: Analysis and Synthesis of the Assumptions and Conceptions in the Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(22):14799. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214799

Haller K, Berends W, Skillin P. Organizational Culture and Nursing Practice: The Magnet Recognition Program ® As A Framework for Positive Change. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes. 2018 May;29(3):328–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2018.03.005

American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Standards For Establishing and Sustaining Healthy Work Environments. A Journey to Excellence [Internet]. 2nd ed. Aliso Viejo (CA): AACN; 2016 [Cited 2023 May 10]. Available from: https://www.aacn.org/~/media/aacn-website/nursing-excellence/standards/hwestandards.pdf.

Callado A. O Ambiente da Prática e a Sua Importância Para a Enfermagem. Journal of Aging and Innovation. 2019 Dec;8(3). https://doi.org/10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v8i3-8

Abuzied Y, Al-Amer R, Abuzaid M, Somduth S. The Magnet Recognition Program and Quality Improvement in Nursing. Glob J Qual Saf Healthc. 2022 Nov 22;5(4):106-108. https://doi.org/10.36401/JQSH-22-12

Voyce J, Gouveia MJB, Medinas MA, Santos AS, Ferreira RF. A Donabedian Model of the Quality of Nursing Care From Nurses' Perspectives in a Portuguese Hospital: A Pilot Study. J Nurs Meas. 2015;23(3):474-84. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.23.3.474

Tossaint-Schoenmakers R, Versluis A, Chavannes N, Talboom-Kamp E, Kasteleyn M. The Challenge of Integrating eHealth Into Health Care: Systematic Literature Review of the Donabedian Model of Structure, Process, and Outcome. J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 10;23(5):e27180. https://doi.org/10.2196/27180

Kelly L, Todd M. Compassion Fatigue and the Healthy Work Environment. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2017 Winter;28(4):351-358. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2017283

Wei H, Sewell KA, Woody G, Rose MA. The state of the science of nurse work environments in the United States: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Sci. 2018 Apr 16;5(3):287-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.04.010

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ. 2021;372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Leonardi-Bee J, Tufanaru C, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth. 2023 Mar 1;21(3):494-506. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-22-00430

Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]. Adelaide: JBI; 2020 [cited 2023 May 10]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 Array