Table 5.

Risk of Bias in Non – randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

STUDY	CONFOUNDING	SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS	CLASSIFICATION OF INTERVENTION	DEVIATION FROM INTENDED INTERVENTIONS	MISSING DATA	MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOMES	SELECTION OF REPORTED RESULTS	OVERALL
MILLER ET AL. 2023	Mean age was 28.5 years Difference in the level of education and nursing degrees. Different units and leadership Moderate risk	Convenient sampling Moderate risk No randomization,	Low risk	Low risk	Several nurses did not complete the measures, resulting in a lower sample size Moderate risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
SALMOND ET AL. 2017	Age range was very high 21–49 however they tried to control by an eligible inclusion criterion by having one year of experience after graduation. Difference in the level of education of the participants Moderate risk	Nonrandomized convenient sample Differences in the selection criteria ta from cohort 1 and cohort 2 Moderate risk	Low risk	Low risk	They have difficulty in collecting data for example Several facilities were not able to provide the data on retention. Moderate risk	Low risk	Low risk	The researchers tried to have the study as mixed methodology to support as the most effective mean of putting data into context. Moderate risk
FAILLA ET AL 2021	Age range 22–54 Less than 1 year Different speciality area experience, RN license Moderate risk	Nonrandomized convenient sample Moderate risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
WOLFORD J. 2019.	Age range is huge 22-59 Did not mention the education level BSN vs Diploma. Moderate risk	Convenient sampling as it is a retrospective. Moderate risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
PILLAI ET AL 2018	Age range is huge 21-62 Different degree and educational level (Diploma, associate degree, and BSN) High risk	Convenient sampling Moderate risk	Low risk	No information	No information	Low risk		Moderate risk