ABSTRACT
Aim
This study aimed to explore the association of organisational support with health education competency and to examine the mediating role of self‐efficacy among Chinese nurses.
Design
A cross‐sectional study.
Methods
The cross‐sectional survey method was used in this study. Using a convenience sampling approach, 9182 nurses were recruited from 54 tertiary hospitals, 56 secondary hospitals, and 23 first‐level hospitals in Anhui province, China, in 2023. The study used the Social‐demographic Questionnaire, the Self‐efficacy scale, the Organisational Support Perception Scale and the Health Education Competency Self‐evaluation Scale for Nursing Staff to collect the data. Independent samples t‐tests and one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were employed to assess the differences in health education competency. A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the variables. The structural equation model (SEM) was employed, and the mediating effect between variables was assessed using the Bootstrap method.
Results
Health education competency was significantly positively correlated with self‐efficacy and organisational support (p < 0.001). Self‐efficacy was significantly positively correlated with organisational support (p < 0.001). Organisational support has a direct positive predictive effect on health education competency. Self‐efficacy is a mediating variable of organisational support and health education competency. The mediating effect is 0.336, accounting for 51.45% of the total effect.
Conclusions
The level of nurses' health education ability in China is medium and still needs to be improved. Self‐efficacy can play a part of the mediating role between organisational support and health education competency. The intervention measures to improve health education competency should be focused on nurses' organisational support improvement.
Keywords: health education competency, mediating effect, nurse, organisational support, self‐efficacy
1. Introduction
Health education plays a critical role in improving patient outcomes, enhancing health literacy, and promoting disease prevention (Marcum et al. 2002). Nurses, as frontline healthcare providers, are pivotal in delivering effective health education (Gruppen et al. 2012). However, the competency of nurses in health education depends on various factors, including organisational support and individual attributes such as self‐efficacy (Hwang and Kuo 2018; Liu et al. 2014).
Organisational support, which encompasses the resources, encouragement, and recognition provided by healthcare institutions, has been identified as a key factor influencing nurses' professional performance (Eisenberger et al. 1986; McMillin 1997). At the same time, self‐efficacy—a belief in one's ability to successfully perform specific tasks—has emerged as a crucial psychological construct that affects skill development, motivation, and job performance (Bandura 1993, 1982, 1977). Previous research has suggested that self‐efficacy may mediate the relationship between organisational support and professional competencies, but empirical evidence in the context of health education competency among nurses remains limited (Kheswa 2015; Lawrance and McLeroy 1986).
This study aims to examine the mediating role of self‐efficacy in the relationship between organisational support and health education competency among a large sample of 9182 nurses. By exploring these relationships, this research seeks to provide valuable insights for healthcare administrators and policymakers to foster environments that enhance nurses' competency in delivering high‐quality health education.
1.1. Background
Health education is a fundamental component of healthcare, aimed at empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their health and adopt behaviours that promote well‐being (Eisenberger et al. 1986). Nurses, as the primary caregivers in healthcare settings, play a pivotal role in delivering effective health education (Bandura 1993). However, their ability to perform health education effectively is influenced by several factors, including their individual competencies, organisational support and psychological attributes, such as self‐efficacy (Bandura 1977; Kheswa 2015).
Organisational support refers to the resources, guidance and positive work environment provided by healthcare institutions to enhance employees' performance (Levinson 1965). In nursing, organisational support encompasses access to training, professional development opportunities, emotional and peer support and overall workplace culture (Zheng and Wu 2018). Research has demonstrated that organisational support has a positive impact on employees' motivation, job satisfaction and performance (Lowe et al. 2020). For nurses, organisational support can influence their ability to effectively engage in health education by providing the necessary tools, resources and an environment conducive to learning and growth. For instance, training programmes, professional development initiatives and a supportive work environment can help nurses gain the skills and confidence needed to deliver high‐quality health education (Karantzas et al. 2016).
Self‐efficacy, a concept developed by Bandura, is defined as an individual's belief in their ability to successfully perform tasks and achieve goals (Bandura 1993). In nursing, self‐efficacy is an important factor in determining how nurses approach their roles, including health education (Bandura 1982). Nurses with higher self‐efficacy are more likely to feel confident in their ability to educate patients, implement interventions and tailor educational materials to meet the needs of diverse populations (Bandura 1977; Kheswa 2015). High self‐efficacy also contributes to greater resilience and persistence in the face of challenges, which is particularly valuable in health education, where successful patient engagement and behaviour change can be complex and demanding (Williams and French 2011). Nurses who believe in their ability to educate patients effectively are more likely to seek opportunities for professional development, further enhancing their competencies (Zamani‐Alavijeh et al. 2019).
Health education competency refers to the skills, knowledge and attitudes required for nurses to effectively provide health education (Yu et al. 2020). It includes the ability to assess patients' educational needs, design tailored interventions, communicate information clearly and evaluate the effectiveness of the education provided (Jahromi 2016). Competency in health education is essential for improving patient outcomes and promoting preventive care (Abdi et al. 2014). Nurses who are competent in health education can better engage patients in discussions about their health, helping them make informed decisions that can reduce the risk of illness and improve their overall health (Aghakhani et al. 2012).
The relationship among organisational support, self‐efficacy and health education competency is critical for enhancing the quality of healthcare delivery. However, the interactions between these factors have not been sufficiently explored, particularly the role of self‐efficacy as a mediator (Bergh et al. 2014). It remains unclear whether organisational support enhances nurses' health education competency indirectly through its impact on self‐efficacy. Understanding how these variables interact can offer insights into how healthcare organisations can create supportive environments that foster higher self‐efficacy, and in turn, improve nurses' competencies in health education (Zamani‐Alavijeh et al. 2019; Yu et al. 2020).
This study draws on the JD‐R model to develop a theoretical framework for understanding the relationships among organisational support, self‐efficacy and health education competency (Demerouti et al. 2001; Schwarzer and Hallum 2008). The JD‐R model, developed by Demerouti et al. (2001), posits that work characteristics can be categorised into two main dimensions: job demands and job resources (Demerouti et al. 2001). Job demands are aspects of the job that require sustained effort and are typically associated with physical or psychological costs (e.g., workload, emotional demands). Job resources, on the other hand, refer to aspects of the job that help employees meet job demands, achieve work goals, and promote personal growth (e.g., support from supervisors, autonomy, professional development opportunities) (Schwarzer and Hallum 2008).
According to the JD‐R model, organisational support serves as a key job resource, potentially enhancing nurses' self‐efficacy, which in turn improves their health education competency. Specifically, greater organisational support is expected to boost nurses' confidence in their abilities (self‐efficacy), thus enabling them to effectively engage in health education activities (Demerouti et al. 2001; Schwarzer and Hallum 2008; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002).
Thus, based on the theoretical framework discussed, this study proposes the following hypotheses to investigate the relationships among organisational support, self‐efficacy and health education competence among nurses:
Hypothesis 1
Organisational support positively correlates with health education competency.
Hypothesis 2
Self‐efficacy positively correlates with health education competency.
Hypothesis 3
Self‐efficacy mediates the relationship between organisational support and health education competency.
This theoretical framework serves as the basis for the hypotheses tested in this study, and aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how organisational factors and personal beliefs interact to shape nurses' competencies in health education. By exploring these relationships, the study seeks to offer valuable insights for healthcare administrators and policymakers to develop strategies that improve the health education capabilities of nurses, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.
In summary, this study intends to take nursing staff as the research object, aiming to explore the relationship among nursing staff's self‐efficacy, organisational support and health education competency to intervene and improve the health education competency of nurses.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
The cross‐sectional survey method was used in this study. The hypothetical model of this study is presented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1.
Path diagram of the mediating effects of self‐efficacy on the relationship between organisational support and health education competency. Paths a, b, and c represent the direct effects of each variable. M represents the mediating effect of self‐efficacy.
2.2. Sample
The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) participants were registered nurses, (2) participation was voluntary and (3) participants' ages ranged from 18 to 60 years. The exclusion criteria were met: (1) participants were internship nurses and (2) participants with a history of mental illness. For the study's mediation framework using structural equation modelling (SEM), the sample size is calculated with the formula: n = 10 * q (Sousa and Rojjanasrirat 2011). Where q is the number of free parameters or observed variables. The model includes three latent variables (organisational support, self‐efficacy, health education competency), 14 observed variables (scale items). Thus, q = 17, and the minimum sample size is: n = 10 * 17 = 170. To improve statistical power and account for dropout, a sample size of 200–400 is often recommended. For this study, a final sample size of 400–500 participants is advised to ensure sufficient power and handle potential data issues.
Finally, a total of 10,239 nurses were recruited in 54 tertiary hospitals, 56 secondary hospitals and 23 primary hospitals in Anhui Province in 2023 using the convenient sampling method. And 9182 (89.68%) nurses responded effectively. Tertiary hospitals provide specialised, high‐level care for complex conditions, equipped with advanced diagnostic tools and staffed by specialists. They are typically large teaching institutions that handle referrals from lower‐level hospitals. First‐level hospitals offer basic care and serve as the first point of contact for patients, focusing on general medicine, routine treatments, and preventive care, but lack the specialised services of tertiary hospitals.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Self‐Efficacy
Self‐efficacy was assessed by the nurses using the 10‐item self‐efficacy scale adopted from Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1992). It is currently widely used internationally and has been translated into multiple languages. Each item is scored on a Likert scale from 1 (indicates disagreement) to 4 (indicates strong agreement). The reliability of this tool at the time of its development was Cronbach's α = 0.87 Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1992) and 0.89 in this study.
2.3.2. Organisational Support
The Chinese version of the Organisational Support Perception scale, developed by (Zuo and Yang 2008), was used to measure organisational support. It includes two dimensions of emotional support (10 items) and instrumental support (3 items). All items are scored on a Likert scale from 1 (very inconsistent) to 5 (very consistent). The reliability of this tool at the time of its development was Cronbach's α = 0.92 (Zuo and Yang 2008) and 0.92 in this study.
2.3.3. Health Education Competency
Health education competency was measured by the Chinese version of the Health Education Competency Self‐Rating Scale for Nursing Staff, developed by (Yu et al. 2020). The scale comprises three sub‐scales and 89 items: knowledge and experience (two dimensions such as ‘medical knowledge’ and ‘experience’), skills and abilities (five dimensions such as ‘assessment’, ‘planning, implementation and evaluation’, ‘scientific research and innovation’, ‘communication’, ‘leadership and management’), comprehensive qualities (three dimensions such as ‘social role’, ‘personal characteristics and motivation’, ‘professional loyalty’). The score for each item was calculated by a Likert scale from 1 (very inconsistent) to 5 (very consistent). The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.977, and it has good validity. Besides, standard scores were calculated for the scale and each sub‐scales using the formula: Standard Score = (Actual Score/Total Score) * 100. The reliability of this tool at the time of its development was Cronbach's α = 0.977 (Yu et al. 2021) and 0.95 in this study.
2.3.4. Social‐Demographic Information
Social‐demographic information was rated using the social‐demographic questionnaire developed by the researcher, including age (years), gender, work tenure (years), marital status, educational level and professional title.
2.3.5. Data Collection
A questionnaire consisting of the aforementioned scales and socio‐demographic information was designed for the investigation. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers through an online survey system. Prior to conducting the survey, consent and assistance were obtained from hospital administrators in 133 hospitals. First of all, the questionnaire link was distributed by the corresponding author to the directors of the nursing department of each hospital in Anhui Province that participated in the survey. Second, the directors of the nursing department of each hospital posted the questionnaire link to the head nurse of each department. Finally, the head nurse of the department issued the link to the nurse.
In the questionnaire, a unified guide was used to explain the research purpose, research significance, relevant concepts and necessary precautions. Simultaneously, several measures were implemented to ensure the high quality of the collected data. Firstly, each IP address can only be filled in once. Second, all questions were set as mandatory options to reduce missed choices. Finally, participants needed to complete all questions before submitting the questionnaire. After receiving the questionnaire link, it is required to fill in and submit it within 1 week. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. For each nurse, it took 5–10 min to complete the survey. After the questionnaire is recovered, the questionnaire will be checked and eliminated by two researchers. When there is a disagreement, it will be decided by the research team after discussion. A total of 10,239 questionnaires were collected during the investigation. After excluding waste papers such as too many filling in the same option, too short in the filling time, filling in the name of the hospital or department, 9182 valid questionnaires were obtained, and the effective response rate was 89.68% eventually.
2.3.6. Ethical Consideration
The study was approved by the ethical committee (ethics number REDACTED). In this study, informed consent was obtained through the electronic signature of an online informed consent form.
2.3.7. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 23.0. Descriptive statistics for social‐demographic variable characteristics of the nurses were shown with frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation (SD). The independent sample t‐test and one‐way (ANOVA) is used to compare the difference in health education competency according to the characteristics of the social‐demographic variables of the participants. Pearson's correlation analysis was carried out for the correlation among organisational support, self‐efficacy, and health education competency.
AMOS 23.0 is used to analyse the structural equation model, and the Bootstrap method is used to detect the mediating effect of self‐efficacy between organisational support and health education competency. The maximum likelihood method is selected to estimate the model parameters, and then the hypothetical model and data were carried out fitness evaluation and appropriate model modification. The bootstrap method was based on 2000 samples. It was considered to be statistically significant when the two‐tailed probability value is less than 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Social‐Demographic Information
Social‐demographic information among the 9182 nurses is displayed in Table 1. The majority of the respondents were women (n = 8975, 97.7%) and married (n = 6831, 74.4%), and hold the bachelor's degree (n = 6884, 75.0%). In addition, of the respondents, 87% (n = 7989) were under 40 years old, 67.2% (n = 6169) held junior titles and 71.4% (n = 6557) have served as nurses for more than 5 years.
TABLE 1.
Social‐demographic information of the respondents (n = 9182).
| Variable | n (%) | Mean | SD | t/F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 1.71 | 0.087 | |||
| Male | 207 (2.3) | 76.74 | 12.00 | ||
| Female | 8975 (97.7) | 78.11 | 11.37 | ||
| Age (years) | 4.41 | 0.000 | |||
| < 20 | 12 (0.1) | 75.24 | 12.13 | ||
| 20–29 | 4085 (44.5) | 77.60 | 11.33 | ||
| 30–39 | 3892 (42.4) | 78.25 | 11.38 | ||
| 40–50 | 990 (10.8) | 79.27 | 11.53 | ||
| > 50 | 203 (2.2) | 79.01 | 11.20 | ||
| Educational level | 0.34 | 0.732 | |||
| Secondary Technical certificate | 124 (1.3) | 78.97 | 11.78 | ||
| College degree | 2117 (23.1) | 77.87 | 11.42 | ||
| Bachelor degree | 6884 (75.0) | 78.14 | 11.36 | ||
| Master degree or higher | 57 (0.6) | 77.10 | 11.68 | ||
| Marital status | 1.28 | 0.200 | |||
| Married | 6831 (74.4) | 78.24 | 11.42 | ||
| Single | 2223 (24.2) | 77.47 | 11.26 | ||
| Divorced | 115 (1.3) | 80.55 | 11.08 | ||
| Windowed | 13 (0.1) | 81.66 | 10.83 | ||
| Work tenure (year) | 4.04 | 0.000 | |||
| ≤ 1 | 179 (2.0) | 79.28 | 10.86 | ||
| 1 < tenure ≤ 3 | 1186 (12.9) | 77.58 | 11.43 | ||
| 3 < tenure ≤ 5 | 1260 (13.7) | 77.48 | 11.22 | ||
| 5 < tenure ≤ 10 | 3247 (35.4) | 77.37 | 11.38 | ||
| > 10 | 3310 (36.0) | 79.13 | 11.38 | ||
| Professional title | 14.62 | 0.000 | |||
| Junior title | 6169 (67.2) | 77.64 | 11.39 | ||
| Mid‐level title | 2835 (30.9) | 79.04 | 11.29 | ||
| Senior title | 178 (1.9) | 78.08 | 11.93 |
The health education competency standard score of nurses was 78.08 ± 11.38, at a moderate level. There were significant differences in the level of health education competency on age, work tenure and professional title (p < 0.05).
From Table 2, it can be seen that the mean score for self‐efficacy was 29.45 (SD = 6.16), and the average level of organisational support was 48.49 (SD = 11.26).
TABLE 2.
Means, standard deviations, and ranges for the variables (n = 9182).
| Variables | Mean | SD | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Health education competency standard score | 78.08 | 11.38 | 20–100 |
| 1.1 Knowledge and experience standard score | 80.88 | 16.44 | 20–100 |
| 1.2 Skills and abilities standard score | 76.17 | 11.69 | 20–100 |
| 1.3 Comprehensive qualities standard score | 82.20 | 16.62 | 20–100 |
| 2 Self‐efficacy | 29.45 | 6.16 | 10–40 |
| 3 Organisational support | 48.49 | 11.26 | 13–65 |
| 3.1 Emotional support | 36.86 | 8.90 | 10–50 |
| 3.2 Instrumental support | 11.63 | 2.63 | 3–15 |
Note: Standard Score = (Actual Score/Total Score) * 100.
3.2. Correlations Among Self‐Efficacy, Organisational Support and Health Education Competency
The correlation among self‐efficacy, organisational support and health education competency is presented in Table 3. Health education competency was significantly positively correlated with self‐efficacy (r = 0.420, p < 0.001) and organisational support (r = 0.385, p < 0.001). Self‐efficacy was significantly positively correlated with organisational support (r = 0.584, p < 0.001).
TABLE 3.
Pearson correlations among self‐efficacy, organisational support and health education competency (n = 9182).
| Variable | Health education competency | Self‐efficacy | Organisational support |
|---|---|---|---|
| r (p) | r (p) | r (p) | |
| Health education competency | 1 | ||
| Self‐efficacy | 0.420 (< 0.001) | 1 | |
| Organisational support | 0.385 (< 0.001) | 0.584 (< 0.001) | 1 |
3.3. Mediating Role of Self‐Efficacy on Organisational Support and Health Education Competency
A mediating model was established, with organisational support as the independent variable, self‐efficacy as the mediating variable, and health education competency as the dependent variable. After model correction, the fitting index of the final model is good: CMIN/DF = 4.603 (< 5), RMSEA = 0.02 (< 0.08), GFI = 1.000 (> 0.90), AGFI = 0.996 (> 0.90), NFI = 1.000 (> 0.90), RFI = 0.998 (> 0.90), CFI = 1.000 (> 0.90). The mediation model is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 shows that organisational support positively predicts self‐efficacy (β = 0.59, p < 0.001), self‐efficacy positively predicts health education competency (β = 0.57, p < 0.001), and organisational support positively predicts health education competency (β = 0.32, p < 0.001). The Bootstrap method test results show that the direct effect of organisational support on health education competency is 0.317, the indirect effect is 0.336, the total effect is 0.653, and the 95% CI does not contain 0, indicating that the mediation effect is significant, and self‐efficacy plays a partial mediating role between organisational support and health education competency, and the mediating effect accounts for 51.45% of the total effect; see Table 4.
FIGURE 2.
Mediating role of self‐efficacy in the association between organisational support and health education competency (n = 9182).
TABLE 4.
The mediation effect of self‐efficacy on organisational support and health education competency (n = 9182).
| Structural path | Point estimation | Product of coefficients | Bias‐corrected 95% CI | Percentile 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||
| Direct effect | 0.317*** | 0.021 | 15.095 | 0.275 | 0.357 | 0.276 | 0.358 |
| Indirect effect | 0.336*** | 0.014 | 24.000 | 0.310 | 0.368 | 0.309 | 0.365 |
| Total effect | 0.653*** | 0.024 | 27.208 | 0.608 | 0.701 | 0.607 | 0.700 |
Note: Standardised estimating of 2000 bootstrap samples.
p < 0.001.
4. Discussion
This study was guided by the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 (H1): Organisational support positively influences the health education competency of nursing staff. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Self‐efficacy positively influences the health education competency of nursing staff. Hypothesis 3 (H3): Self‐efficacy mediates the relationship between organisational support and health education competency.
4.1. Hypothesis 1: Organisational Support and Health Education Competency
The results of this study confirm Hypothesis 1, showing that organisational support positively influences health education competency. The organisational support score (48.49 ± 11.26) was moderate, and there was a significant positive correlation between organisational support and health education competency (r = 0.385, p < 0.001). This supports findings in the literature that organisational support plays a critical role in enhancing employee performance. For instance, recent studies highlight that organisations that provide comprehensive support—both emotional and instrumental—see improvements in employee job satisfaction and work performance (Witt 1991). Our findings align with the Social Exchange Theory, which suggests that employees who perceive that their organisation cares about them are more likely to reciprocate through increased performance and organisational commitment (Hwang et al. 2015). The moderate score for organisational support in this study highlights that both emotional (e.g., respect, recognition) and instrumental (e.g., training, resources) support are essential for fostering a productive work environment. As evidenced by recent research, addressing both types of support is crucial for optimising employee outcomes and enhancing overall service quality (Lowe et al. 2020).
4.2. Hypothesis 2: Self‐Efficacy and Health Education Competency
Hypothesis 2 is also supported by our results, which show a positive correlation between self‐efficacy and health education competency (r = 0.42, p < 0.001). This finding reinforces the importance of self‐efficacy, as proposed by Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (1986), which asserts that individuals with higher self‐efficacy are more likely to engage in goal‐directed behaviour, exhibit persistence, and perform tasks successfully (Bandura 1993). Recent research has confirmed that self‐efficacy is a key factor in health professionals' ability to deliver effective education and care (Bandura 1982). Nurses with higher self‐efficacy are better equipped to engage with patients and deliver health education effectively, improving patient outcomes. Self‐efficacy has been found to influence job performance in healthcare settings, particularly in roles that require communication and teaching (Price et al. 2004). Nurses with greater self‐confidence are better able to handle patient inquiries and provide comprehensive health education (Soudagar et al. 2015). Therefore, organisations should focus on improving self‐efficacy through targeted interventions such as skill‐based workshops and positive reinforcement.
4.3. Hypothesis 3: Self‐Efficacy as a Mediator
Finally, Hypothesis 3 posits that self‐efficacy mediates the relationship between organisational support and health education competency. The results of this study support this hypothesis, with self‐efficacy accounting for 51.45% of the mediating effect. This suggests that organisational support improves health education competency indirectly by enhancing self‐efficacy. Recent studies have demonstrated similar mediation effects, indicating that organisational support contributes to employee confidence, which in turn influences performance outcomes (Tyler‐Viola et al. 2012).
The mediation effect of self‐efficacy is consistent with the Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model, which suggests that job resources (such as organisational support) can enhance employee motivation and work performance by boosting personal resources like self‐efficacy (Lowe et al. 2020; Ma et al. 2016). Additionally, younger nurses (aged 20–40) are particularly vulnerable to burnout and low self‐efficacy, making organisational support critical in helping them overcome these challenges. Research found that organisational support improves self‐efficacy, which leads to better work engagement and competency in delivering health education (Tyler‐Viola et al. 2012; Ma et al. 2015).
4.4. Implications for Nursing Practice
The findings of this study have important practical implications for healthcare organisations. First, healthcare managers should prioritise enhancing both emotional and instrumental support to improve the work environment. This includes providing resources, offering professional development opportunities, and fostering a culture of respect and recognition. Such support has been shown to enhance job satisfaction and improve job performance, particularly in health education roles.
Second, organisations should focus on building the self‐efficacy of nursing staff through targeted interventions, such as training programmes, mentorship and positive feedback systems. Nurses with higher self‐efficacy are better equipped to handle the challenges of health education and can deliver more effective care.
4.5. Limitations and Future Research
While the results of this study provide valuable insights, there are some limitations. The cross‐sectional design limits our ability to make causal inferences. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design to track changes over time and better understand the directionality of these relationships. Additionally, future studies should explore the role of organisational support and self‐efficacy in other healthcare settings, including different cultural and institutional contexts, to assess the generalisability of the findings.
5. Conclusion
This study highlights the pivotal roles of organisational support and self‐efficacy in enhancing health education competency among nursing staff. Our findings affirm that organisational support directly boosts competency, while self‐efficacy mediates this relationship, amplifying the effect of support on performance. Nurses who perceive higher levels of support, both emotional and instrumental, exhibit greater confidence in their abilities, leading to improved health education outcomes.
These results underscore the importance of fostering a supportive work environment—one that integrates training, resources and career development opportunities. By enhancing both organisational support and self‐efficacy, healthcare organisations can elevate nursing competencies, ultimately improving the quality of health education and patient care.
Future research should extend these findings across different healthcare settings and employ longitudinal designs to explore causal relationships. In sum, this study offers actionable insights for healthcare organisations aiming to enhance nursing performance and service delivery by prioritising both psychological empowerment and structural support.
Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Ethics Statement
The study was approved by the ethical committee at the second affiliated hospital of Anhui medical university, China (ethics number YX2019‐038(F1)).
Consent
Nurses were the subjects of data collection for this study and participated in the survey upon voluntary consent to participate.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Anhui Medical University, Mainland China. The author is grateful for the insightful comments suggested by the editor and the anonymous reviewers.
Funding: This study was supported by Anhui Medical University 2022 Annual Research Fund, Grant/Award Number: 2022xkj321.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
References
- Abdi, A. , Izadi A., Vafaeei K., and Lorestani E.. 2014. “Assessment of Patient Education Barriers in Viewpoint of Nurses and General Physicians.” International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 8, no. 12: 2252–2256. [Google Scholar]
- Aghakhani, N. , Nia H. S., Ranjbar H., Rahbar N., and Beheshti Z.. 2012. “Nurses' Attitude to Patient Education Barriers in Educational Hospitals of Urmia University of Medical Sciences.” Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research 17, no. 1: 12–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. 1977. “Self‐Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84, no. 2: 191–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. 1982. “Self‐Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.” American Psychologist 37, no. 2: 122–147. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. 1993. “Perceived Self‐Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning.” Educational Psychologist 28, no. 2: 117–148. [Google Scholar]
- Bergh, A. L. , Persson E., Karlsson J., and Friberg F.. 2014. “Registered Nurses' Perceptions of Conditions for Patient Education—Focusing on Aspects of Competence.” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 28, no. 3: 523–536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Demerouti, E. , Bakker A. B., Nachreiner F., and Schaufeli W. B.. 2001. “The Job Demands‐Resources Model of Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 3: 499–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberger, R. , Huntington R., Hutchison S., and Sowa D.. 1986. “Perceived Organizational Support.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71, no. 3: 500–507. [Google Scholar]
- Gruppen, L. D. , Mangrulkar R. S., and Kolars J. C.. 2012. “The Promise of Competency‐Based Education in the Health Professions for Improving Global Health.” Human Resources for Health 10, no. 1: 43–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, H. , Dahinten V. S., and MacPhee M.. 2015. “The Effects of Perceived Organizational Support and Job Demands on Nurses' Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave.” Journal of Nursing Management 23, no. 3: 307–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, H. , and Kuo T.. 2018. “Competency in Delivering Health Education: A Concept Analysis.” Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice 11: 20–25. [Google Scholar]
- Jahromi, J. B. 2016. “A Study of the Barriers and Facilitators of Patient Education From the Viewpoint of Nursing Students at Jahrom College of Nursing.” Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science 15, no. 3: 471–476. 10.3329/bjms.v15i3.30201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jerusalem, M. , and Schwarzer R.. 1992. “Self‐Efficacy as a Resource Factor in Stress Appraisal Processes.” Self‐Efficacy: Thought Control of Action 10, no. 1: 195–213. [Google Scholar]
- Karantzas, G. C. , McCabe M. P., Mellor D., et al. 2016. “Organizational Climate and Self‐Efficacy as Predictors of Staff Strain in Caring for Dementia Residents: A Mediation Model.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 66, no. 2: 89–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kheswa, J. 2015. “Exploring the Impact of Ineffective Communication on Educators' Teaching Performance at Primary Schools.” International Journal of Educational Sciences 11, no. 3: 330–340. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrance, L. , and McLeroy K. R.. 1986. “Self‐Efficacy and Health Education.” Journal of School Health 56, no. 8: 317–321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Levinson, H. 1965. “Reciprocation: The Relationship Between Man and Organization.” Administrative Science Quarterly 9, no. 4: 370–390. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C. , Liu Y. L., Guo C., and Ren Y. J.. 2014. “Preliminary Exploration of the Mental Health Education Competency Survey of Primary and Middle School Head Teachers.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 2, no. 1: 73–80. [Google Scholar]
- Lowe, M. A. , Prapanjaroensin A., Bakitas M. A., Hites L., Loan L. A., and Raju D.. 2020. “An Exploratory Study of the Influence of Perceived Organizational Support, Coworker Social Support, the Nursing Practice Environment, and Nurse Demographics on Burnout in Palliative Care Nurses.” Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing 22, no. 6: 465–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ma, R. , Jackson D., and Lea J.. 2015. “Evaluation of Nurses' Attitudes Towards Patient Education Barriers in Educational Hospitals.” Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research 17, no. 1: 12–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ma, R. , Peake R. M., Jackson D., and Lea J.. 2016. “Investigating Health Education Competency Development Among Nurses: An Integrative Review.” Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science 15, no. 3: 471–476. [Google Scholar]
- Marcum, J. , Ridenour M., Shaff G., Hammons M., and Taylor M.. 2002. “A Study of Professional Nurses' Perceptions of Patient Education.” Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 33, no. 3: 112–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McMillin, R. 1997. “Customer Satisfaction and Organizational Support for Service Providers.” PhD diss., University of Florida. USA.
- Price, R. M. , Jackson D., and Cureton V.. 2004. “Increasing Self‐Efficacy and Knowledge Through a Seizure Education Program for Special Education Teachers.” Journal of School Nursing 20, no. 1: 43–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rhoades, L. , and Eisenberger R.. 2002. “Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 4: 698–714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schwarzer, R. , and Hallum S.. 2008. “Perceived Teacher Self‐Efficacy as a Predictor of Job Stress and Burnout: Mediation Analyses.” Applied Psychology 57, no. 1: 152–171. [Google Scholar]
- Soudagar, S. , Rambod M., and Beheshtipour N.. 2015. “Factors Associated With Nurses' Self‐Efficacy in Patient Education: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research 20, no. 2: 226–231. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sousa, V. D. , and Rojjanasrirat W.. 2011. “Translation, Adaptation and Validation of Health‐Related Instruments: Issues and Guidelines.” Journal of Nursing Scholarship 17, no. 2: 268–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tyler‐Viola, L. A. , Jackson D., Lea J., and Usher K.. 2012. “Staff Nurses' Perceptions of Competency and Its Relationship to Perceived Organizational Support and Self‐Efficacy.” Journal for Nurses in Staff Development 28, no. 1: 32–35.22261904 [Google Scholar]
- Williams, S. L. , and French D. P.. 2011. “What Are the Most Effective Intervention Techniques for Changing Physical Activity Self‐Efficacy and Physical Activity Behaviour—And Are They the Same?” Health Education Research 26, no. 2: 308–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Witt, L. A. 1991. “Exchange Ideology as a Moderator of Job Attitudes‐Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Relationships.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21: 1490–1491. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, M. , Wu D., Wei Z., Wang X., and Wang Y.. 2020. “Constructing a Health Education Competency Evaluation Index System for Nursing Staff Based on Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Modern Preventive Medicine 47, no. 16: 2895–2898. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, M. , Wu D., Wang M. M., et al. 2021. “Reliability and Validity of the Self‐Assessment Scale for Health Education Competence Among Nursing Staff.” Nursing Research 35, no. 1: 74–79. [Google Scholar]
- Zamani‐Alavijeh, F. , Araban M., Harandy T. F., Bastami F., and Almasian M.. 2019. “Sources of Health Care Providers' Self‐Efficacy to Deliver Health Education: A Qualitative Study.” BMC Medical Education 19, no. 1: 16–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, J. , and Wu G.. 2018. “Work‐Family Conflict, Perceived Organizational Support and Professional Commitment: A Mediation Mechanism for Chinese Project Professionals.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 2: 344–346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, H. , and Yang H.. 2008. “Research on Nurses' Self‐Efficacy and Organizational Support Relationship.” Chinese Journal of Nursing 43, no. 10: 897–899. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.