ABSTRACT
Aim
To explore the heterogeneity of publication pressure among nursing staff by identifying latent profiles and examining associated factors, with the aim of informing targeted research support and individualized stress‐management strategies.
Design
A cross‐sectional study.
Methods
Between April and September 2025, 508 nursing staff members were recruited by convenience sampling from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou, China. Participants completed measures of publication pressure, nursing research competence, general self‐efficacy, and job burnout. Latent profile analysis identified publication‐pressure profiles, and a bias‐adjusted three‐step multinomial regression examined factors associated with profile membership while accounting for classification uncertainty.
Results
Four publication‐pressure profiles were identified: low‐demand/limited‐resource, moderate‐pressure, high‐demand/resource‐supported, and high‐demand/resource‐constrained. Age, education level, marital status, work stress, and financial stress showed profile‐specific associations. Higher nursing research competence and general self‐efficacy were associated with lower odds of membership in the two high‐demand profiles.
Conclusion
Publication pressure among nursing staff is heterogeneous, and nurses with similarly high publication demands may differ substantially in available resources. Distinguishing these patterns provides a practical basis for targeted nursing research management.
Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care
Profile‐based management can help nursing managers match protected research time, mentorship, methodological support, and psychological resource support to nurses with different demand‐resource patterns, especially those with high demands and constrained resources.
Impact
This study addresses heterogeneity in nurses' publication pressure and identifies four distinct demand‐resource patterns. The findings can inform more precise allocation of research support in tertiary hospitals and comparable clinical nursing settings.
Reporting Method
The study was reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline.
No Patient or Public Contribution
No patients or members of the public were involved because the study focused on nurses' occupational and research‐related experiences rather than patient‐facing interventions or outcomes.
Keywords: general self‐efficacy, latent profile analysis, nurses, publication pressure, research competency
1. Introduction
As nursing has become increasingly specialized, research has assumed an increasingly important role in improving care quality, advancing nursing knowledge, and supporting professional development (Chen et al. 2019). In this process, academic publication is a major means of disseminating research findings and contributes to professional development, academic advancement, and research capacity among nursing staff (O'brien et al. 2022; Priest et al. 2007). Publication pressure refers to the subjective stress experience caused by research output requirements, performance evaluation systems, and career development needs of researchers during manuscript writing, submission, and publication. Conceptually, publication pressure reflects a perceived imbalance between publication demands and the personal or organizational resources available to meet those demands (Woolf 1986; Haven, Bouter, et al. 2019). However, clinical nursing work itself is characterized by high intensity and high workload. In addition to completing daily clinical diagnosis, treatment and patient care, nursing staff also need to invest a large amount of time and energy in research design and paper writing. This dual‐role stress has been associated with emotional exhaustion and job burnout among some staff (Huang et al. 2023; Duke et al. 2020), and even caused academic misconduct, which not only violates research integrity but also hinders the healthy development of the discipline (Maggio et al. 2019; Tijdink et al. 2014). While undertaking heavy clinical work, nursing staff also need to complete research training and paper publication tasks. Previous studies have shown that high workload, occupational stress and research output requirements may be associated with higher levels of job burnout and psychological burden, as well as lower job satisfaction and poorer work experience (Singh et al. 2020; Babapour et al. 2022; Galanis et al. 2023). However, clinical nurses generally face barriers such as limited research competence, insufficient knowledge of research methodology, lack of research time, and insufficient organizational support when participating in research activities (Chen et al. 2019; Akerjordet et al. 2012; Nkrumah et al. 2018). These factors may limit research productivity and may also be associated with higher perceived publication‐related stress.
Existing studies mostly focus on single stress sources such as time conflict and resource shortage, emphasizing the correlation between stress and demographic and occupational characteristics (Bahadori et al. 2016; Jabonete and Roxas 2022), while ignoring population heterogeneity. Previous studies have shown that nursing staff with different education levels, professional titles and working years have significant differences in stress levels, stress sources, and coping styles (Sikioti et al. 2023; Hao et al. 2025). Relying solely on total score or mean analysis may mask the real differences among groups with different stress patterns. Person‐centred evidence on publication pressure among nurses is limited but not absent. A 2022 preprint by Ju et al. applied the PPQ‐r, JD‐R framework, LPA, and multinomial regression in 924 Chinese nurses and identified four publication‐pressure profiles (Ju et al. 2022). A related 2023 study from the same research group examined overall publication pressure and associated factors in 919 nurses using a variable‐centred approach (Ju et al. 2023). These studies provide an important basis for further examination of publication‐pressure heterogeneity in independent samples and different practice settings.
The theoretical basis of this study is the Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model, proposed by Demerouti et al. (Demerouti et al. 2001) in 2001. The model holds that any occupational environment can be summarized into two core dimensions: job demands and job resources. The JD‐R model proposes an action path: the ‘health impairment process’, that is, sustained excessive job demands will continuously consume individuals' physical and mental resources, thus inducing stress, emotional exhaustion, and job burnout (Bakker and Demerouti 2017). Previous studies have shown that the JD‐R model has been widely used in the fields of occupational stress, job burnout, mental health and work engagement among nursing staff, and has been proven to well explain the stress formation and psychobehavioral outcomes of nursing staff (Van Der Heijden et al. 2019). In the context of academic publication, nursing staff first conduct a primary appraisal of research‐related demands, such as publication requirements, promotion pressure and research performance expectations, determining whether these demands are perceived as challenges or threats. Subsequently, through secondary appraisal, they evaluate available personal and environmental resources, including research competence, mentorship support, research infrastructure and self‐efficacy, which shape their subsequent stress experiences. Therefore, nursing staff who perceive high publication demands but have insufficient resources may be more likely to experience greater publication pressure, whereas those with stronger research competence and higher self‐efficacy may adopt more positive stress appraisals and coping strategies. Guided by this theoretical framework, this study employed latent profile analysis (LPA) from a person‐centred perspective to identify heterogeneous patterns of publication pressure among nursing staff and further examined the associations of demographic characteristics, occupational factors, research competence and psychological resources with membership in different publication pressure profiles.
Latent profile analysis (LPA) (Gibson 1959) is a person‐centred statistical method, which identifies subgroups with different symptom burdens (Lanza and Rhoades 2013) and classifies subpopulations with similar characteristics or behaviours (Berlin et al. 2014). LPA has been applied in various fields, including psychology, education, sociology and healthcare. A cross‐sectional study by Boone et al. (Boone et al. 2022) explored latent burnout profiles among young researchers, identified five burnout patterns, and pointed out directions for targeted intervention. KöKçAM B et al. (Kökçam et al. 2021) conducted latent profile analysis on college students' stress status (from the perspectives of psychological resilience and emotional intelligence) and identified five subgroups, providing reference for formulating precise stress management strategies. Sun et al. (Sun et al. 2024) used latent profile analysis to classify psychological stress among 1978 nursing students, and identified four latent categories: High employment stress type, low stress type, moderate stress type and high stress type. The study found that the psychological stress of nursing students was generally at a moderate‐high level, and there were significant differences in coping styles and professional identity among different categories, which confirmed that the psychological stress experience of nursing populations had obvious heterogeneity, and the overall psychological stress level was at a moderate‐high level. Therefore, this study used LPA to identify distinct patterns of publication pressure among nursing staff and subsequently examined demographic, occupational, research‐related and psychological factors associated with profile membership.
In view of this, using an independent 2025 sample from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou, this study adopts the LPA method to re‐examine the latent profile characteristics of publication pressure among nursing staff and factors associated with profile membership, with particular attention to nursing research competence, general self‐efficacy, work stress and financial stress, aiming to provide empirical evidence for categorized and precise research support and stress‐management strategies.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and Setting
From April to September 2025, 508 nursing staff from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou, China were selected by convenience sampling. Inclusion criteria: (1) aged ≥ 18 years; (2) holding a registered nurse practice certificate; (3) working duration of more than 1 year; (4) voluntary participation in the survey. Exclusion criteria: (1) nurses on sick or maternity leave; (2) refresher nurses and nursing interns. This study followed the sample size estimation principle for cross‐sectional studies, that is, the sample size should be 5–10 times the number of research variables (Ni et al. 2010). A total of 44 variables were included in the study, so the minimum sample size was 440. Considering an invalid questionnaire rate of about 10%, the final required sample size was no less than 488. In addition, according to the sample size requirements for LPA to ensure the stability of model estimation and reliability of classification results (Kim 2014; Nylund‐Gibson et al. 2023), the final included sample size was 508. This study was reported in accordance with the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. General Demographic Questionnaire
Including age, gender, education level, working years, professional title, marital status, publication experience, department type, perceived importance of nursing research, work stress, job satisfaction, and financial stress.
2.2.2. Publication Pressure Questionnaire‐Revised (PPQ‐r)
The Publication Pressure Questionnaire‐revised (PPQ‐r) was developed by Haven et al. (Haven, De Goede, et al. 2019) and subsequently translated and validated among Chinese nurses by Xi et al. (Xi et al. 2023) The validated Chinese version (PPQ‐r‐C) comprises 9 items in two subscales: publication demands (5 items) and publication resources (4 items), rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). The four resource items are positively worded and were reverse‐scored so that higher values indicate fewer perceived publication resources. To make the score direction explicit, the reverse‐scored resource subscale is referred to as ‘perceived publication resource insufficiency’ in the present study. The two subscales were interpreted separately, and no overall PPQ‐r‐C total score was calculated or interpreted. In the present sample, Cronbach's α was 0.825 for publication demands and 0.830 for perceived publication resource insufficiency.
2.2.3. Self‐Rated Nursing Research Competence Scale
After two rounds of expert consultation completed by 22 experts (16 nursing experts, 3 health management experts, 2 clinical medical experts, 1 public health and preventive medicine expert), pre‐investigation and reliability and validity testing, the final scale includes 13 items in 2 dimensions: problem identification ability (4 items), problem analysis and solving ability (9 items), using a 5‐point Likert scale. A score of 1 indicates completely unable to perform, and 5 indicates always able to perform. Higher scores indicate stronger research competence. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale was 0.971, and the Cronbach's α values of the two dimensions were 0.913 and 0.974, respectively.
2.2.4. General Self‐Efficacy Scale (GSES)
The General Self‐Efficacy Scale (GSES) was developed by Schwarzer. The Chinese version was introduced and evaluated among first‐year university students in Hong Kong by Zhang and Schwarzer in 1995 (Zhang and Schwarzer 1995). The scale consists of 10 items rated on a 4‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true), with higher scores indicating greater general self‐efficacy. In the present study, the scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α of 0.87.
2.2.5. Maslach Burnout Inventory‐General Survey (MBI‐GS)
The Maslach Burnout Inventory‐General Survey (MBI‐GS) was originally developed by Maslach et al. (Maslach and Jackson 1981) and subsequently adapted for use in China by Li et al. (Li and Shi 2003). The Chinese version comprises 15 items across three dimensions: emotional exhaustion (5 items), cynicism/depersonalization (4 items), and reduced personal accomplishment (6 items). Responses in the electronic questionnaire were recorded on a 7‐point scale coded from 1 (never) to 7 (very frequent). The six personal‐accomplishment items were reverse‐scored before calculation so that higher scores indicated more severe burnout. Previous Chinese validation reported Cronbach's α coefficients of 0.88, 0.83, and 0.82 for the three dimensions, respectively.
2.3. Data Collection and Quality Control
Electronic questionnaires were created using the Wenjuanxing online survey platform. The researchers distributed the questionnaire link and QR code via WeChat or invited participants to scan the QR code on site. The first page of the electronic questionnaire presented an electronic informed‐consent statement. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary, that the information collected would be kept confidential and used for research purposes, and that they could decide whether to participate without any effect on their work. Participants proceeded with the questionnaire after providing electronic consent. All questions were mandatory. The electronic survey was configured to prevent submission when required items were incomplete or invalid. The Wenjuanxing platform automatically recorded IP addresses to restrict duplicate submissions. These IP addresses were visible in the raw data export, but were used only for duplicate‐submission and data‐quality checks and were not included as study variables or in the statistical analyses. After excluding invalid questionnaires with completion time less than 1 min or straight‐line response patterns, data were double‐checked and entered by two researchers independently to ensure data accuracy and integrity.
2.4. Statistical Methods
SPSS 27.0 and Mplus 8.3 were used for data processing and statistical analysis. Categorical data were expressed as frequency (percentage) [n (%)], and inter‐group comparisons were performed using χ2 tests; normally distributed continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x̄ ± s), and skewed continuous data as median (interquartile range) [M (P25, P75)]. For latent profile analysis (LPA), the five publication‐demand items and four reverse‐scored resource items of the PPQ‐r‐C were used as indicators, and one‐ to six‐profile solutions were examined. Model selection considered AIC, BIC, aBIC, LMR, BLRT, entropy, class size, profile distinctiveness, and substantive interpretability. After the optimal profile solution was selected, a bias‐adjusted three‐step multinomial regression was used to examine factors associated with profile membership while retaining the classification‐error probabilities from the LPA. Covariates were selected on theoretical and substantive grounds rather than by univariate statistical significance alone. Gender, age, marital status, education level, professional title, prior publication experience, department category, work stress, financial stress, nursing research competence, and general self‐efficacy were entered into the model. Because sparse cells occurred in the smallest profile, the no‐stress and mild‐stress categories were combined as the reference category for work stress and financial stress. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIFs); values ranged from 1.08 to 2.56. A two‐sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
2.5. Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee. Participation in this study was completely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without affecting their normal work and benefits. Electronic informed consent was obtained before questionnaire completion. Survey data were used only for research purposes and were handled confidentially. IP addresses were automatically recorded by the survey platform and were visible to the investigators in the raw survey export; they were used solely for duplicate‐submission and data‐quality checks and were not included in the analytic dataset or statistical analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Characteristics of Publication Pressure
A total of 578 electronic questionnaires were submitted, of which 508 met the validity criteria and were included in the analysis, corresponding to a usable questionnaire rate of 87.9%. The respondents were mainly female, young and middle‐aged, with working years mostly concentrated in 5–15 years, education level mainly bachelor's degree, and professional titles mostly nurse practitioner and below, which was generally consistent with the demographic structure of clinical nursing staff. In terms of research‐related characteristics, the proportion of nurses who had not published papers was relatively high, and the perceived importance of nursing research was mostly at a moderate level, indicating that some nursing staff had relatively limited research practice foundation. In terms of work and life stress, most nursing staff reported low job satisfaction, more than half reported relatively high work stress, and financial stress was mostly at moderate level or above, suggesting that while undertaking clinical work, nursing staff may also face the combined impact of research requirements, career development and real‐life pressure. As shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Participant characteristics.
| Items | Profile | n | Constituent ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 66 | 13.0 |
| Female | 442 | 87.0 | |
| Age | 22 ~ 29 | 119 | 23.4 |
| 30 ~ 40 | 299 | 58.9 | |
| > 40 | 90 | 17.7 | |
| Working years | 1 ~ 4 | 80 | 15.7 |
| 5 ~ 15 | 364 | 71.7 | |
| > 15 | 64 | 12.6 | |
| Marital status | Unmarried | 129 | 25.4 |
| Married | 379 | 74.6 | |
| Education level | Junior college diploma | 129 | 25.4 |
| Bachelor's degree | 315 | 62.0 | |
| Master's degree or above | 64 | 12.6 | |
| Professional title | Nurse practitioner and below | 348 | 68.5 |
| Nurse‐in‐charge | 100 | 19.7 | |
| Associate chief nurse and above | 60 | 11.8 | |
| Prior academic publication experience | Yes | 178 | 35.0 |
| No | 330 | 65.0 | |
| Department category | Clinical department | 362 | 71.3 |
| Non‐clinical department | 146 | 28.7 | |
| Perceived importance of nursing research | Very high | 63 | 12.4 |
| Relatively high | 116 | 22.8 | |
| Moderate | 252 | 49.6 | |
| Slight | 50 | 9.8 | |
| Not at all | 27 | 5.3 | |
| Job satisfaction level | Not at all | 72 | 14.2 |
| Slight | 270 | 53.1 | |
| Moderate | 108 | 21.3 | |
| Relatively satisfied | 58 | 11.4 | |
| Work stress level | Not at all | 27 | 5.3 |
| Slight | 121 | 23.8 | |
| Moderate | 70 | 13.8 | |
| Relatively high stress | 290 | 57.1 | |
| Financial stress level | Not at all | 85 | 16.7 |
| Slight | 87 | 17.1 | |
| Moderate | 233 | 45.9 | |
| Relatively high stress | 103 | 20.3 |
The mean item scores for publication demands and perceived publication resource insufficiency were 3.62 ± 0.68 and 2.64 ± 0.87, respectively. The mean item scores for nursing research competence, general self‐efficacy, and job burnout were 3.14 ± 0.83, 2.52 ± 0.67, and 3.92 ± 0.64, respectively. As shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2.
Descriptive statistics of study variables.
| Items | Total score ± SD | Mean ± SD | Minimum (Min) | Maximum (Max) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publication demands | 18.09 ± 3.38 | 3.62 ± 0.68 | 1.60 | 5.00 |
| Perceived publication resource insufficiency | 10.57 ± 3.48 | 2.64 ± 0.87 | 1.00 | 5.00 |
| Nursing research competence | 40.86 ± 10.84 | 3.14 ± 0.83 | 1.00 | 4.92 |
| General self‐efficacy | 25.21 ± 6.67 | 2.52 ± 0.67 | 1.00 | 4.00 |
| Job burnout | 58.83 ± 9.54 | 3.92 ± 0.64 | 1.00 | 7.00 |
3.2. Latent Profile Analysis Results
This study examined one‐ to six‐profile solutions. AIC, BIC, and aBIC decreased as the number of profiles increased. The four‐profile solution had good classification accuracy (entropy = 0.904), significant LMR and BLRT results compared with the three‐profile solution, and no very small class; the smallest profile accounted for 8.9% of the sample. Although the five‐ and six‐profile solutions showed further decreases in the information criteria, entropy declined to 0.860 and 0.858, respectively. Inspection of the conditional item means showed that the additional profiles mainly represented further subdivisions of existing response patterns rather than clearly distinct demand‐resource configurations. Considering statistical fit, classification quality, class size, substantive interpretability, and parsimony, the four‐profile solution was retained Tables 3 and 4.
TABLE 3.
Fit indices for latent profile models.
| Type | AIC | BIC | aBIC | Entropy | LMRT | BLRT | Class proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14150.368 | 14226.516 | 14169.382 | — | — | — | 1.000 |
| 2 | 13511.367 | 13629.821 | 13540.945 | 0.950 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.159/0.841 |
| 3 | 13173.699 | 13334.458 | 13213.841 | 0.951 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.142/0.254/0.604 |
| 4 | 13067.218 | 13270.281 | 13117.923 | 0.904 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.144/0.252/0.516/0.089 |
| 5 | 12937.516 | 13182.884 | 12998.784 | 0.860 | — | — | 0.150/0.246/0.360/0.165/0.079 |
| 6 | 12850.501 | 13138.174 | 12922.333 | 0.858 | — | — | 0.140/0.136/0.120/0.344/0.167/0.093 |
Note: Five‐ and six‐profile solutions were additionally examined to assess whether further profile extraction improved classification and substantive interpretability.
Abbreviations: aBIC, sample‐size adjusted Bayesian information criterion; AIC, akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; BLRT, bootstrap likelihood ratio test; LMRT, Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test.
TABLE 4.
Posterior probabilities of four‐profile latent membership.
| Latent profile | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 Low‐demand/limited‐resource profile | 0.987 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| C2 Moderate‐pressure profile | 0.016 | 0.976 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| C3 High‐demand/resource‐supported profile | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.946 | 0.034 |
| C4 High‐demand/resource‐constrained profile | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.161 | 0.837 |
3.3. Naming of Latent Profiles
The LPA was based on the five publication‐demand items and four reverse‐scored resource items of the PPQ‐r‐C. As shown in Figure 1, the four profiles showed distinct demand‐resource patterns. The first profile included 73 nurses (14.4%) and had relatively low publication demands together with the highest perceived resource insufficiency, and was named the ‘low‐demand/limited‐resource profile’. The second profile included 128 nurses (25.2%) and showed generally moderate demand and resource‐insufficiency scores, and was named the ‘moderate‐pressure profile’. The third profile included 262 nurses (51.6%) and was characterized by high publication demands but the lowest perceived resource insufficiency, and was named the ‘high‐demand/resource‐supported profile’. The fourth profile included 45 nurses (8.9%) and showed the highest publication demands together with greater resource insufficiency than the third profile; it was named the ‘high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile’.
FIGURE 1.
Conditional item means of the PPQ‐r‐C across four latent profiles among nursing staff. Items 6–9 were reverse‐scored; higher scores indicate greater perceived publication resource insufficiency.
3.4. Comparison of Publication Pressure Characteristics Across Latent Profiles of Nursing Staff
The publication‐demand and resource‐insufficiency subscale scores differed significantly across the four latent profiles (both p < 0.001). The high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile had the highest publication‐demand score (23.11 ± 1.70). The low‐demand/limited‐resource profile had the highest perceived resource‐insufficiency score (15.48 ± 2.81), whereas the high‐demand/resource‐supported profile had the lowest score (8.79 ± 2.57). These differences further distinguished the resource‐supported and resource‐constrained high‐demand profiles. See Table 5.
TABLE 5.
Publication pressure characteristics across four latent profiles (C1–C4 as defined in Table 4).
| Items | Total sample | C1 (n = 73) | C2 (n = 128) | C3 (n = 262) | C4 (n = 45) | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publication demands | 18.09 ± 3.38 | 14.19 ± 1.88 | 15.54 ± 1.94 | 19.56 ± 2.23 | 23.11 ± 1.70 | 283.899 | < 0.001 |
| Perceived publication resource insufficiency | 10.57 ± 3.48 | 15.48 ± 2.81 | 10.66 ± 2.39 | 8.79 ± 2.57 | 12.78 ± 2.70 | 141.751 | < 0.001 |
3.5. Univariate Analysis of Latent Profiles of Publication Pressure
The four profiles differed significantly in age, length of nursing service, marital status, education level, department category, perceived importance of nursing research, job satisfaction, work stress, financial stress, nursing research competence, general self‐efficacy, and job burnout (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found for gender, professional title, or prior publication experience. The high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile was characterized by a high proportion of nurses with a bachelor's degree, greater work and financial stress, and lower nursing research competence and general self‐efficacy. See Table 6.
TABLE 6.
Comparison of characteristics across four latent profiles (C1–C4 as defined in Table 4).
| Items | Profile | C1 [n (%)] | C2 [n (%)] | C3 [n (%)] | C4 [n (%)] | Test statistic | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 14 (19.2) | 20 (15.6) | 29 (11.1) | 3 (6.7) | 5.706 | 0.127 |
| Female | 59 (80.8) | 108 (84.4) | 233 (88.9) | 42 (93.3) | |||
| Age | 22–29 | 27 (37.0) | 29 (22.7) | 47 (17.9) | 16 (35.6) | 36.448 | < 0.001 |
| 30–40 | 42 (57.5) | 88 (68.8) | 149 (56.9) | 20 (44.4) | |||
| > 40 | 4 (5.5) | 11 (8.6) | 66 (25.2) | 9 (20.0) | |||
| Length of nursing service, years | 1–4 | 20 (27.4) | 22 (17.2) | 30 (11.5) | 8 (17.8) | 14.827 | 0.022 |
| 5–15 | 42 (57.5) | 95 (74.2) | 197 (75.2) | 30 (66.7) | |||
| > 15 | 11 (15.1) | 11 (8.6) | 35 (13.4) | 7 (15.6) | |||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 31 (42.5) | 24 (18.8) | 50 (19.1) | 24 (53.3) | 38.260 | < 0.001 |
| Married | 42 (57.5) | 104 (81.2) | 212 (80.9) | 21 (46.7) | |||
| Education level | Junior college diploma | 44 (60.3) | 54 (42.2) | 29 (11.1) | 2 (4.4) | 109.823 | < 0.001 |
| Bachelor's degree | 22 (30.1) | 63 (49.2) | 190 (72.5) | 40 (88.9) | |||
| Master's degree or above | 7 (9.6) | 11 (8.6) | 43 (16.4) | 3 (6.7) | |||
| Professional title | Nurse practitioner and below | 52 (71.2) | 99 (77.3) | 164 (62.6) | 33 (73.3) | 10.174 | 0.118 |
| Nurse‐in‐charge | 14 (19.2) | 19 (14.8) | 59 (22.5) | 8 (17.8) | |||
| Associate chief nurse and above | 7 (9.6) | 10 (7.8) | 39 (14.9) | 4 (8.9) | |||
| Prior publication experience | Yes | 32 (43.8) | 49 (38.3) | 87 (33.2) | 10 (22.2) | 6.707 | 0.082 |
| No | 41 (56.2) | 79 (61.7) | 175 (66.8) | 35 (77.8) | |||
| Department category | Clinical department | 56 (76.7) | 98 (76.6) | 167 (63.7) | 41 (91.1) | 18.709 | < 0.001 |
| Non‐clinical department | 17 (23.3) | 30 (23.4) | 95 (36.3) | 4 (8.9) | |||
| Perceived importance of nursing research | Very high | 21 (28.8) | 18 (14.1) | 18 (6.9) | 6 (13.3) | 39.779 | < 0.001 |
| Relatively high | 19 (26.0) | 33 (25.8) | 49 (18.7) | 15 (33.3) | |||
| Moderate | 26 (35.6) | 63 (49.2) | 147 (56.1) | 16 (35.6) | |||
| Slight | 5 (6.8) | 8 (6.2) | 32 (12.2) | 5 (11.1) | |||
| Not at all | 2 (2.7) | 6 (4.7) | 16 (6.1) | 3 (6.7) | |||
| Job satisfaction level | Not at all | 20 (27.4) | 22 (17.2) | 18 (6.9) | 12 (26.7) | 60.396 | < 0.001 |
| Slight | 39 (53.4) | 77 (60.2) | 147 (56.1) | 7 (15.6) | |||
| Moderate | 8 (11.0) | 16 (12.5) | 64 (24.4) | 20 (44.4) | |||
| Relatively satisfied | 6 (8.2) | 13 (10.2) | 33 (12.6) | 6 (13.3) | |||
| Work stress level | Not at all | 13 (17.8) | 8 (6.2) | 6 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | 85.522 | < 0.001 |
| Slight | 29 (39.7) | 45 (35.2) | 41 (15.6) | 6 (13.3) | |||
| Moderate | 4 (5.5) | 26 (20.3) | 30 (11.5) | 10 (22.2) | |||
| Relatively high stress | 27 (37.0) | 49 (38.3) | 185 (70.6) | 29 (64.4) | |||
| Financial stress level | Not at all | 32 (43.8) | 32 (25.0) | 20 (7.6) | 1 (2.2) | 99.709 | < 0.001 |
| Slight | 8 (11.0) | 36 (28.1) | 34 (13.0) | 9 (20.0) | |||
| Moderate | 29 (39.7) | 36 (28.1) | 149 (56.9) | 19 (42.2) | |||
| Relatively high stress | 4 (5.5) | 24 (18.8) | 59 (22.5) | 16 (35.6) | |||
| Nursing research competence | Mean ± SD | 3.45 ± 0.82 | 3.14 ± 0.92 | 3.15 ± 0.76 | 2.59 ± 0.75 | 10.317 | < 0.001 |
| General self‐efficacy | Mean ± SD | 2.79 ± 0.69 | 2.54 ± 0.57 | 2.54 ± 0.66 | 1.90 ± 0.55 | 19.212 | < 0.001 |
| Job burnout | Mean ± SD | 3.70 ± 0.58 | 3.84 ± 0.53 | 3.95 ± 0.61 | 4.35 ± 0.91 | 11.356 | < 0.001 |
3.6. Multivariate Analysis of Latent Profiles of Publication Pressure
Profile membership was used as the dependent variable, with the low‐demand/limited‐resource profile as the reference group. A bias‐adjusted three‐step multinomial regression was used so that classification uncertainty from the LPA was retained in the regression analysis. Covariates were specified on theoretical and substantive grounds rather than selected according to univariate p values. The model included gender, age, marital status, education level, professional title, prior publication experience, department category, work stress, financial stress, nursing research competence, and general self‐efficacy. The coding rules are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7.
Coding rules for covariates in the three‐step regression model.
| Variable name | Assignment |
|---|---|
| Gender | 1 = Male, 2 = Female |
| Age (years) | 1 = 22–29 years, 2 = 30–40 years, 3 = > 40 years |
| Marital status | 1 = Unmarried, 2 = Married |
| Education level | 1 = Junior college diploma, 2 = Bachelor's degree, 3 = Master's degree or above |
| Professional title | 1 = Nurse practitioner and below, 2 = Nurse‐in‐charge, 3 = Associate chief nurse and above |
| Prior academic publication experience | 1 = Yes, 2 = No |
| Department category | 1 = Clinical department, 2 = Non‐clinical department |
| Current work stress level | 1 = No/mild stress, 2 = Moderate stress, 3 = Relatively high stress |
| Current financial stress level | 1 = No/mild stress, 2 = Moderate stress, 3 = Relatively high stress |
| Self‐rated nursing research competence | Entered as continuous mean item score |
| General self‐efficacy | Entered as continuous mean item score |
Compared with the low‐demand/limited‐resource profile, membership in the moderate‐pressure profile was associated with married status (OR = 3.906, 95% CI: 1.467–10.402), bachelor's education (OR = 3.294, 95% CI: 1.482–7.323), and moderate work stress (OR = 7.298, 95% CI: 1.698–31.375), whereas higher general self‐efficacy was associated with lower odds of membership (OR = 0.531, 95% CI: 0.298–0.947). For the high‐demand/resource‐supported profile, age > 40 years, married status, higher education level, moderate or relatively high work stress, and relatively high financial stress were associated with higher odds of membership. Higher nursing research competence (OR = 0.463, 95% CI: 0.273–0.782) and general self‐efficacy (OR = 0.489, 95% CI: 0.254–0.942) were associated with lower odds.
For the high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile, age > 40 years, bachelor's education, and moderate or relatively high work stress were associated with higher odds of membership. Higher nursing research competence (OR = 0.292, 95% CI: 0.134–0.635) and general self‐efficacy (OR = 0.072, 95% CI: 0.018–0.290) were associated with markedly lower odds of membership. The three‐step model converged satisfactorily, and VIF values of 1.08–2.56 indicated no important multicollinearity among the included covariates. Detailed estimates are shown in Table 8.
TABLE 8.
Bias‐adjusted three‐step multinomial regression of factors associated with publication pressure profiles.
| Variable | β | Wald χ 2 | p | OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate‐pressure profile (1) | |||||
| Intercept | 1.744 | 3.170 | 0.075 | ||
| Gender: Female | −0.102 | 0.055 | 0.815 | 0.903 | 0.383–2.128 |
| Age: 30–40 years | 0.461 | 0.648 | 0.421 | 1.585 | 0.516–4.863 |
| Age: > 40 years | 1.321 | 2.128 | 0.145 | 3.748 | 0.635–22.115 |
| Marital status: Married | 1.362 | 7.432 | 0.006 | 3.906 | 1.467–10.402 |
| Education: Bachelor's degree | 1.192 | 8.554 | 0.003 | 3.294 | 1.482–7.323 |
| Education: Master's degree or above | 0.770 | 1.200 | 0.273 | 2.161 | 0.544–8.576 |
| Professional title: Nurse‐in‐charge | −0.363 | 0.507 | 0.476 | 0.696 | 0.257–1.887 |
| Professional title: Associate chief nurse and above | −0.937 | 1.753 | 0.185 | 0.392 | 0.098–1.568 |
| Prior publication experience: No | 0.420 | 1.167 | 0.280 | 1.521 | 0.711–3.257 |
| Department category: Non‐clinical department | −0.181 | 0.150 | 0.698 | 0.835 | 0.334–2.083 |
| Work stress: Moderate | 1.988 | 7.135 | 0.008 | 7.298 | 1.698–31.375 |
| Work stress: Relatively high | 0.290 | 0.511 | 0.475 | 1.337 | 0.603–2.961 |
| Financial stress: Moderate | −0.667 | 2.625 | 0.105 | 0.513 | 0.229–1.150 |
| Financial stress: Relatively high | 1.223 | 2.283 | 0.131 | 3.396 | 0.695–16.587 |
| Nursing research competence | −0.500 | 3.504 | 0.061 | 0.606 | 0.359–1.024 |
| General self‐efficacy | −0.632 | 4.607 | 0.032 | 0.531 | 0.298–0.947 |
| High‐demand/resource‐supported profile (2) | |||||
| Intercept | 0.687 | 0.431 | 0.511 | ||
| Gender: Female | 0.398 | 0.706 | 0.401 | 1.488 | 0.588–3.766 |
| Age: 30–40 years | 0.110 | 0.029 | 0.866 | 1.116 | 0.314–3.965 |
| Age: > 40 years | 2.402 | 6.493 | 0.011 | 11.051 | 1.741–70.147 |
| Marital status: Married | 1.216 | 4.366 | 0.037 | 3.373 | 1.078–10.555 |
| Education: Bachelor's degree | 2.615 | 32.135 | < 0.001 | 13.672 | 5.535–33.770 |
| Education: Master's degree or above | 1.876 | 9.255 | 0.002 | 6.529 | 1.949–21.870 |
| Professional title: Nurse‐in‐charge | 0.030 | 0.004 | 0.952 | 1.031 | 0.386–2.755 |
| Professional title: Associate chief nurse and above | −0.611 | 0.886 | 0.346 | 0.543 | 0.152–1.936 |
| Prior publication experience: No | 0.401 | 1.036 | 0.309 | 1.493 | 0.690–3.232 |
| Department category: Non‐clinical department | 0.110 | 0.066 | 0.797 | 1.116 | 0.483–2.581 |
| Work stress: Moderate | 1.789 | 4.579 | 0.032 | 5.985 | 1.162–30.820 |
| Work stress: Relatively high | 1.362 | 9.396 | 0.002 | 3.904 | 1.634–9.328 |
| Financial stress: Moderate | 0.709 | 2.779 | 0.096 | 2.032 | 0.883–4.679 |
| Financial stress: Relatively high | 1.881 | 5.076 | 0.024 | 6.563 | 1.277–33.721 |
| Nursing research competence | −0.771 | 8.264 | 0.004 | 0.463 | 0.273–0.782 |
| General self‐efficacy | −0.716 | 4.572 | 0.033 | 0.489 | 0.254–0.942 |
| High‐demand/resource‐constrained profile (3) | |||||
| Intercept | 3.276 | 2.268 | 0.132 | ||
| Gender: Female | 0.246 | 0.053 | 0.818 | 1.279 | 0.158–10.365 |
| Age: 30–40 years | 1.198 | 1.252 | 0.263 | 3.314 | 0.406–27.017 |
| Age: > 40 years | 3.225 | 5.559 | 0.018 | 25.157 | 1.723–367.309 |
| Marital status: Married | −0.953 | 1.366 | 0.242 | 0.386 | 0.078–1.906 |
| Education: Bachelor's degree | 4.480 | 4.742 | 0.029 | 88.196 | 1.564–4972.382 |
| Education: Master's degree or above | 2.803 | 1.161 | 0.281 | 16.486 | 0.101–2697.891 |
| Professional title: Nurse‐in‐charge | 0.350 | 0.237 | 0.626 | 1.419 | 0.347–5.801 |
| Professional title: Associate chief nurse and above | 0.313 | 0.020 | 0.888 | 1.368 | 0.018–105.011 |
| Prior publication experience: No | 0.681 | 0.986 | 0.321 | 1.977 | 0.515–7.585 |
| Department category: Non‐clinical department | −1.169 | 1.434 | 0.231 | 0.311 | 0.046–2.105 |
| Work stress: Moderate | 2.916 | 4.929 | 0.026 | 18.463 | 1.407–242.229 |
| Work stress: Relatively high | 2.343 | 5.112 | 0.024 | 10.410 | 1.366–79.333 |
| Financial stress: Moderate | −0.311 | 0.163 | 0.686 | 0.733 | 0.162–3.319 |
| Financial stress: Relatively high | 1.709 | 2.457 | 0.117 | 5.524 | 0.652–46.799 |
| Nursing research competence | −1.231 | 9.624 | 0.002 | 0.292 | 0.134–0.635 |
| General self‐efficacy | −2.630 | 13.702 | < 0.001 | 0.072 | 0.018–0.290 |
Note: (1) = Moderate‐pressure profile; (2) = High‐demand/resource‐supported profile; (3) = High‐demand/resource‐constrained profile. The low‐demand/limited‐resource profile was the reference outcome. Reference categories for covariates were male for gender; 22–29 years for age; unmarried for marital status; junior college diploma for education level; nurse practitioner and below for professional title; prior publication experience for publication experience; clinical department for department category; no/mild stress for work stress and financial stress.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
4. Discussion
4.1. Subscale Characteristics and Latent Heterogeneity of Publication Pressure Among Nursing Staff
The results showed that the mean item score for publication demands was 3.62 ± 0.68, and the mean reverse‐scored item score for perceived publication resource insufficiency was 2.64 ± 0.87. This pattern suggests that publication demands were relatively prominent at the sample level, while perceived resource constraints differed across nurses. During manuscript preparation and publication, nursing staff may face limitations in time, methodological support, collaboration, and other research resources, which may contribute to differences in their perceived publication pressure (Happell 2005; Keen 2007; Rajendran et al. 2025).
According to the JD‐R framework, the four‐profile solution provided a clearer description of the heterogeneity of publication pressure among nursing staff: a low‐demand/limited‐resource profile, a moderate‐pressure profile, a high‐demand/resource‐supported profile, and a high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile. The four profiles differed not only in the level of publication demands but also in the degree to which perceived resources accompanied those demands. The earlier 2022 preprint also identified four publication‐pressure profiles among Chinese nurses (Ju et al. 2022). The consistency in the number of profiles further supports meaningful heterogeneity in nurses' publication‐pressure experiences, while the present solution distinguishes nurses with similarly high publication demands according to whether research resources are relatively supported or constrained, providing a more direct basis for differentiated research support.
The high‐demand/resource‐supported profile accounted for 51.6% of the sample, whereas 8.9% belonged to the high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile. Both groups reported high publication demands, but their resource patterns differed clearly. This distinction is important in practice because high publication requirements do not necessarily produce the same stress pattern when nurses have different levels of research support and personal resources. Under the JD‐R framework, matching research demands with available resources may be more informative for management than focusing on publication requirements alone (Bakker and Demerouti 2007).
4.2. Factors Associated With Latent Profile Membership
The four profiles differed in several demographic, occupational, and psychological characteristics. In the three‐step model, age, marital status, education level, work stress, and financial stress showed profile‐specific associations, while nursing research competence and general self‐efficacy were consistently related to lower odds of membership in the high‐demand profiles. A related 2023 study similarly reported associations of publication pressure with age, marital status, education level, work stress, financial stress, and research competence (Ju et al. 2023). Together, these findings indicate that publication pressure is linked to a combination of work demands, personal resources, and the research environment rather than a single demographic characteristic.
4.2.1. Demographic and Occupational Factors Associated With Latent Profile Membership
Age > 40 years and higher education level were associated with membership in the high‐demand profiles, and work stress showed a particularly clear association with the high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile. Nurses with greater professional and academic responsibilities may face more simultaneous clinical, research, and career‐development demands (Fu and Li 2022; Labrague et al. 2021). For nursing managers, workload arrangement and research task allocation should therefore be considered together, especially for nurses who are expected to maintain substantial clinical duties while meeting publication requirements.
4.2.2. Research‐Related and Psychological Factors Associated With Latent Profile Membership
Higher nursing research competence was associated with lower odds of membership in both high‐demand profiles. For each 1‐point increase in research competence, the odds of membership in the high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile were about 70.8% lower (OR = 0.292). Research competence encompasses the ability to identify research questions, select appropriate methods, interpret findings, and complete academic writing, which may support a greater sense of control over research tasks (Lei et al. 2026). In practice, structured methodological training, mentor support, and accessible statistical consultation can be incorporated into routine nursing research management rather than provided only after publication difficulties arise.
Higher general self‐efficacy was also associated with lower odds of high‐demand profile membership, with the strongest association observed in the high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile. The construct measured in this study was general self‐efficacy, reflecting broad confidence in dealing with difficult or unexpected situations rather than confidence specific to research tasks. As a broader psychological resource, general self‐efficacy may help nurses maintain an active coping orientation when research tasks compete with clinical work. Research management can therefore combine skill‐based support with achievable staged goals, timely feedback, and team collaboration to support nurses' confidence in managing demanding research tasks (Rafiei et al. 2024; Azemi et al. 2022).
Overall, the high‐demand/resource‐constrained profile represents a group that may benefit most from integrated support. Compared with simply increasing research training, a combined approach involving protected research time, mentor guidance, methodological support, team‐based collaboration, and psychological resource support is more consistent with the demand‐resource imbalance observed in this profile. Such profile‐based management can help direct limited research‐support resources to nurses with the greatest mismatch between publication demands and available support.
4.3. Implications for Nursing Practice
This study provides a practical basis for integrating publication‐pressure profiles into nursing research management. Nurses with high demands and constrained resources can be prioritized for protected research time, mentor guidance, methodological consultation, and access to research infrastructure, whereas nurses with stronger resource support may benefit more from task coordination and advanced research opportunities. Combining resource allocation with competence development and support for general self‐efficacy can make research management more responsive to different needs. In clinical nursing settings, more stable research support may help nurses sustain participation in practice‐based research and translate clinical questions into quality improvement and evidence‐based care.
4.4. Limitations
This study still has certain limitations. First, this study was a cross‐sectional survey, which could not determine the causal relationship between research competence, general self‐efficacy, job burnout, and publication pressure. Second, participants were recruited from a single tertiary hospital using convenience sampling, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Third, all variables were assessed using self‐report measures, which may have introduced recall and social desirability biases. Finally, the relatively wide confidence intervals for several covariate estimates suggest limited precision, possibly because of small cell sizes in some subgroups.
In addition, this study mainly included individual demographic, work and psychological factors, and did not fully examine factors such as organizational research climate, mentor support, research funding, professional title policy and hospital level. Longitudinal and multi‐centre studies can be carried out in the future, and individual factors and organizational factors can be included in the model at the same time, to further examine the temporal relationships and potential mechanisms underlying publication pressure among nursing staff.
5. Conclusion
This study identified four distinct publication‐pressure profiles among nursing staff: low‐demand/limited‐resource, moderate‐pressure, high‐demand/resource‐supported, and high‐demand/resource‐constrained profiles. Age, education, marital status, work and financial stress, nursing research competence, and general self‐efficacy showed different associations with profile membership after classification uncertainty was taken into account. The separation of two high‐demand profiles with different resource patterns provides a practical basis for more targeted nursing research management. Accordingly, nursing managers may combine methodological support, protected research time, mentorship, competence development, and support for general self‐efficacy to better match management strategies to nurses with different publication‐pressure patterns.
Author Contributions
Haoxue Zhong: writing – original draft, investigation. Chunliu Luo: writing – review and editing, supervision, project administration.
Funding
The authors have nothing to report.
Disclosure
The authors declare that no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics Statement
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University (Approval No. KY‐2025‐116).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors have nothing to report.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
References
- Akerjordet, K. , Lode K., and Severinsson E.. 2012. “Clinical Nurses' Research Capacity in a Norwegian University Hospital: Part 2.” Journal of Nursing Management 20, no. 6: 824–832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Azemi, S. , Dianat I., Abdollahzade F., Bazazan A., and Afshari D.. 2022. “Work‐Related Stress, Self‐Efficacy and Mental Health of Hospital Nurses.” Work 72, no. 3: 1007–1014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Babapour, A. R. , Gahassab‐Mozaffari N., and Fathnezhad‐Kazemi A.. 2022. “Nurses' Job Stress and Its Impact on Quality of Life and Caring Behaviors: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” BMC Nursing 21, no. 1: 75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bahadori, M. , Raadabadi M., Ravangard R., and Mahaki B.. 2016. “The Barriers to the Application of the Research Findings From the Nurses' Perspective: A Case Study in a Teaching Hospital.” Journal of Education Health Promotion 5: 14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bakker, A. B. , and Demerouti E.. 2007. “The Job Demands‐Resources Model: State of the Art.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 22, no. 3: 309–328. [Google Scholar]
- Bakker, A. B. , and Demerouti E.. 2017. “Job Demands‐Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22, no. 3: 273–285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berlin, K. S. , Williams N. A., and Parra G. R.. 2014. “An Introduction to Latent Variable Mixture Modeling (Part 1): Overview and Cross‐Sectional Latent Class and Latent Profile Analyses.” Journal of Pediatric Psychology 39, no. 2: 174–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Boone, A. , Vander Elst T., Vandenbroeck S., and Godderis L.. 2022. “Burnout Profiles Among Young Researchers: A Latent Profile Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 839728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Q. , Sun M., Tang S., and Castro A. R.. 2019. “Research Capacity in Nursing: A Concept Analysis Based on a Scoping Review.” BMJ Open 9, no. 11: e032356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [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]
- Duke, N. N. , Gross A., Moran A., et al. 2020. “Institutional Factors Associated With Burnout Among Assistant Professors.” Teaching and Learning in Medicine 32, no. 1: 61–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fu, M. Y. , and Li X.. 2022. “An Empirical Study on Academic Occupational Stress and Research Output in China.” Studies in Science and Technology 40, no. 3: 475–484. [Google Scholar]
- Galanis, P. , Moisoglou I., Katsiroumpa A., et al. 2023. “Increased Job Burnout and Reduced Job Satisfaction for Nurses Compared to Other Healthcare Workers After the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Nursing Reports 13, no. 3: 1090–1100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, W. A. 1959. “Three Multivariate Models: Factor Analysis, Latent Structure Analysis, and Latent Profile Analysis.” Psychometrika 24, no. 3: 229–252. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, X. , Dai Y., Jia S., Liu S., Zhao C., and Liu X.. 2025. “Latent Profile Analysis of Mental Workload Among Emergency Department Nurses: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” BMC Nursing 24, no. 1: 332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Happell, B. 2005. “Disseminating Nursing Knowledge a Guide to Writing for Publication.” International Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research 10, no. 3: 1147–1155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haven, T. L. , Bouter L. M., Smulders Y. M., and Tijdink J. K.. 2019. “Perceived Publication Pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of All Disciplinary Fields and Academic Ranks.” PLoS One 14, no. 6: e0217931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haven, T. L. , De Goede M. E. E., Tijdink J. K., et al. 2019. “Personally Perceived Publication Pressure: Revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by Using Work Stress Models.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 4: 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y. , Peng S., Sun Y., and Chen L.. 2023. “Subjective Well‐Being Level of Operating Room Nurses and Associations With Job Burnout and Scientific Research Stressors.” Minerva Surgery 78, no. 2: 237–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jabonete, F. G. V. , and Roxas R. E. O.. 2022. “Barriers to Research Utilization in Nursing: A Systematic Review (2002–2021).” SAGE Open Nursing 8: 23779608221091073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ju, D. D. , Xi X. X., Zeng T. Y., et al. 2022. “The Publication Pressure Profiles Among Chinese Nurses: A Latent Profile Analysis.” Research Square. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1471132/v1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ju, D. D. , Zeng T. Y., Xi X. X., et al. 2023. “Publication Pressure and Its Influencing Factors Among Nursing Staff.” Journal of Nursing Administration 23, no. 3: 205–209. [Google Scholar]
- Keen, A. 2007. “Writing for Publication: Pressures, Barriers and Support Strategies.” Nurse Education Today 27, no. 5: 382–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S. Y. 2014. “Determining the Number of Latent Classes in Single‐ and Multi‐Phase Growth Mixture Models.” Structural Equation Modeling 21, no. 2: 263–279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kökçam, B. , Arslan C., and Traş Z.. 2021. “Do Psychological Resilience and Emotional Intelligence Vary Among Stress Profiles in University Students? A Latent Profile Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 788506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Labrague, L. , Ballad C., and Fronda D.. 2021. “Predictors and Outcomes of Work–Family Conflict Among Nurses.” International Nursing Review 68, no. 3: 349–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lanza, S. T. , and Rhoades B. L.. 2013. “Latent Class Analysis: An Alternative Perspective on Subgroup Analysis in Prevention and Treatment.” Prevention Science 14, no. 2: 157–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lei, Y. , Yang L., Wang L., Tan J., Zhang R., and Salvador J. T.. 2026. “Facilitators and Barriers in Developing Research Capacity Among Clinical Nurses: A Systematic Review.” Nurse Education Today 165: 107170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Li, C. P. , and Shi K.. 2003. “Effects of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice on Job Burnout.” Acta Psychologica Sinica 35, no. 5: 677–684. [Google Scholar]
- Maggio, L. , Dong T., Driessen E., Dong T. D., and Artino Jr A.. 2019. “Factors Associated With Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education.” Perspectives on Medical Education 8, no. 2: 74–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maslach, C. , and Jackson S. E.. 1981. “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 2, no. 2: 99–113. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, P. , Chen J., and Liu N.. 2010. “The Sample Size Estimation in Quantitative Nursing Research.” Chinese Journal of Nursing 45, no. 4: 378–380. [Google Scholar]
- Nkrumah, I. , Atuhaire C., Priebe G., and Nambile Cumber S.. 2018. “Barriers for Nurses' Participation in and Utilisation of Clinical Research in Three Hospitals Within the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana.” Pan African Medical Journal 30: 24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nylund‐Gibson, K. , Garber A. C., Carter D. B., et al. 2023. “Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Latent Transition Analysis.” Psychological Methods 28, no. 2: 284–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- O'brien, C. , Furlong E., Coughlan B., Fox P., and Darley A.. 2022. “Building Research Capacity and Culture: Exploring Nurses' Experience of Implementing a Nurse‐Led Clinical Trial.” Journal of Nursing Management 30, no. 4: 1002–1010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Priest, H. , Segrott J., Green B., and Rout A.. 2007. “Harnessing Collaboration to Build Nursing Research Capacity: A Research Team Journey.” Nurse Education Today 27, no. 6: 577–587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rafiei, S. , Souri S., Nejatifar Z., and Amerzadeh M.. 2024. “The Moderating Role of Self‐Efficacy in the Relationship Between Occupational Stress and Mental Health Issues Among Nurses.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1: 15913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rajendran, R. U. , Pai M. S., Nayak B. S., et al. 2025. “Challenges and Needs of Nurse Researchers on Research Publication in Health Universities of Karnataka, India: A Cross‐Sectional Survey.” Journal of Research in Nursing 30, no. 5–6: 606–619. 10.1177/17449871251347840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sikioti, T. , Zartaloudi A., Pappa D., et al. 2023. “Stress and Burnout Among Greek Critical Care Nurses During the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” AIMS Public Health 10, no. 4: 755–774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Singh, C. , Cross W., Munro I., and Jackson D.. 2020. “Occupational Stress Facing Nurse Academics‐A Mixed‐Methods Systematic Review.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 29, no. 5–6: 720–735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Q. , Qian W., Yao Y., et al. 2024. “Stress, Coping and Professional Identity Among Nursing Students During the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Latent Profile Analysis.” Current Psychology 43, no. 46: 35577–35586. [Google Scholar]
- Tijdink, J. K. , Verbeke R., and Smulders Y. M.. 2014. “Publication Pressure and Scientific Misconduct in Medical Scientists.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9, no. 5: 64–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van Der Heijden, B. , Brown Mahoney C., and Xu Y.. 2019. “Impact of Job Demands and Resources on Nurses' Burnout and Occupational Turnover Intention Towards an Age‐Moderated Mediation Model for the Nursing Profession.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 11: 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Woolf, P. K. 1986. “Pressure to Publish and Fraud in Science.” Annals of Internal Medicine 104, no. 2: 254–256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xi, X. , Mao J., Zeng T., and Ju D.. 2023. “Validation of Publication Pressure Questionnaire‐Revised Into Chinese Nurses From a University Hospital.” Nursing Open 10, no. 12: 7713–7724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J. X. , and Schwarzer R.. 1995. “Measuring Optimistic Self‐Beliefs: A Chinese Adaptation of the General Self‐Efficacy Scale.” Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 38, no. 3: 174–181. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.