Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 8;16(1):e0244426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244426

Workplace bullying, psychological hardiness, and accidents and injuries in nursing: A moderated mediation model

Stephen T T Teo 1,*, Diep Nguyen 1, Fiona Trevelyan 2, Felicity Lamm 3, Mark Boocock 4
Editor: Sergio A Useche5
PMCID: PMC7793278  PMID: 33417612

Abstract

Workplace bullying are prevalent among the nursing workforce. Consequences of workplace bullying include psychological stress and workplace accidents and injuries. Psychological hardiness is proposed as a buffer for workplace bullying and psychological stress on workplace accidents and injuries. This study adopted the Affective Events Theory and Conservation of Resources Theory to develop and test a moderated mediated model in two field studies. Study 1 (N = 286, Australian nurses) found support for the direct negative effect of workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries with psychological stress acting as the mediator. The mediation findings from Study 1 were replicated in Study 2 (N = 201, New Zealand nurses). In addition, Study 2 supplemented Study 1 by providing empirical support for using psychological hardiness as the buffer for the association between psychological stress and workplace accidents and injuries. This study offers theoretical and empirical insights into the research and practice on psychological hardiness for improving the psychological well-being of employees who faced workplace mistreatments.

Introduction

Workplace bullying is a typical psychosocial risk factor universally prevalent in most workplaces around the world. The Workplace Bullying Institute’s 2017 survey reported approximate 40% of the bullied targets reported suffering adverse health effects and this incidence affected 60.4 million Americans [1]. Fevre and colleagues reported that approximately half of the participants in the United Kingdom experienced some forms of unreasonable treatment at work and 40% reported workplace disrespect to be the most common phenomenon [2]. Other studies showed that health sector employees are one of the most vulnerable population to expose to psychosocial risk at work [3]. As previously reported, 65% of nursing professionals in the USA observed lateral violence among co-workers [4]. These statistics highlighted the severity of workplace bullying on the stress of the nursing workforce.

Despite several definitions of workplace bullying [5], the present study adopts the definition of workplace bullying by Einarsen and colleagues [6] as “harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks.” Workplace bullying is a major source of psychosocial stressors [7, 8] and it is associated with workplace injury compensation claims [9].

An outcome of psychosocial risk factors is accidents and injuries [10]. Common forms of workplace accidents and injuries among hospital workers include overexertion, falling slips, trips, and falls, contact with objects or equipment, violence, and an exposure to harmful substances [10]. These injuries lead to employees taking sick leaves from work. However, there is inconclusive of the association of psychological stress with workplace accidents and injuries [10, 11]. Therefore, more attention is needed to enhance the workplace safety of nurses [12].

Scholars have been urged to investigate into workplace bullying in the context of workplace safety [12]. A meta-analytical review by Christian et al. showed most studies examine the impact of safety climate and personality factors [13]. Research showed that psychological hardiness could be treated as an important ‘resistance’ resource [14] which helps employees effectively cope with stressful situations and/or negative work-related events because of the ability of psychological resilience [15], as explained by the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory [16]. However, very little is currently known about the moderating role of psychological hardiness in assisting nurses to cope with workplace bullying and its consequent outcomes although this factor is a potential moderator of stress [17]. We will take up this challenge by proposing that psychological stress is a mediator and psychological hardiness is a resource which could be used to buffer the influences of workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries among nurses (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Proposed moderated mediation model.

Fig 1

Note: Control variables: tenure, gender, supervisory role, age and marker variable (social desirability), Study 1: Hypotheses 1 to 4, Study 2: Full model (Hypotheses 1 to 4 and moderation hypotheses).

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Workplace bullying and psychological stress

A “good” work environment is associated with better work outcomes such as lower stress and injury rates [18]. Workplace bullying is an example of “unsafe” psychosocial work environment [19]. Studies showed that bullying leads to burnout [20], which adversely affects the physical and mental health of nurses [35]. These symptoms are prevalent in nursing, irrespective of gender, age, race, education levels, or work history [21]. In Australia and New Zealand, nurses also experienced workplace bullying and work harassment [22].

The integration of the affective events theory (AET) [23] and the COR theory [16] creates a potentially useful framework to explain the negative effects of workplace bullying on nurses. Drawing from the AET, we argue that when employees experience workplace bullying that is a negatively affective event, they would react emotionally to it which would affect their subsequent well-being [5]. Consistent with the COR perspective, an exposure to workplace bullying could result in the depletion of personal and job resources leading to poor psychological health state [24]. There has been empirical support for the negative association between workplace bullying and psychological stress, as shown in a sample of 233 hospital and 208 aged care nurses from Australia [25]. When nurses are exposed to workplace bullying, they experienced more burnout as they could not recover psychologically [26].

  • H1: Workplace bullying has a positive association with psychological stress.

The resulting psychological stress due to workplace bullying could lead to workplace safety outcomes among nurses. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices reported that 7% of 1,565 nurses were involved in medication errors as a result of experiencing intimidation at work [27]. Instead of asking for help in an environment where bullying is present, nurses muddle through an unclear procedure, use an unfamiliar piece of medical equipment without seeking help, lift heavy, or debilitated patients alone [28]. These actions not only are prone to cause accidents that compromise patient care and safety, but also can cause injuries to themselves and jeopardize their safety. Salminen et al. provided empirical support between injuries and interpersonal relationship problems as examples of workplace bullying behaviors [11]. Other studies found that workplace bullying among nurses could result in stress-related symptoms such as accidents and errors [29] and negatively affects the quality and safety of patient care [30]. A recent systematic review supported the positive association between workplace bullying and injuries as “unsupportive social relationships” are related to higher levels of employee injury [31].

  • H2: Workplace bullying has a positive association with workplace accidents and injuries.

Psychological stress and workplace accidents and injuries

Workplace bullying has been found to lead to poor mental well-being [5] and emotional exhaustion [9]. AET perspective could be used to explain these relationships [5]. These health problems could cause a loss of concentration and vigilance at work that increases the chance of making mistakes and the likelihood of work accident and injury events, both physical (e.g., needle injuries) and psychological (e.g., violence) [32]. Bullying was perceived to be associated with occupational injuries [33]. There is also evidence supporting the association between bullying and suicidal ideation or attempted suicide, which is the ultimate injury due to extreme psychological stress [34].

  • H3: Psychological stress has a positive association with workplace accidents and injuries.

Workplace bullying could also result in sleep disorders and fatigue as well as moderate and high levels of psychological stress that increase the risk of work-related accidents and injuries [35]. To reduce the physiological stress of being bullied, some employees even developed excessive alcohol consumption that is a risk factor for accidents and injuries at work to cope with bullying [36]. Others [37] argued that the association between bullying-related psychological stress and work-related accidents and injuries was caused by nurses’ cognitive failures in performing their daily tasks.

  • H4: Psychological stress mediates the positive association of workplace bullying on accidents and injuries at work.

Moderation effects of psychological hardiness

Psychological hardiness has received an increasing interest in high-stress, first respondent occupations such as military [38] and nursing [39]. Hardiness is “a constellation of personality characteristics that function as a resistance resource in the encounter with stressful life events” [40]. A hardy personality comprises of commitment, control, and challenge attitudes that provide a pathway to resilience that facilitates the possibility to turn “stressful circumstances” from adversity into advantage and growth opportunities [14, 41]. Hardy individuals experience stressful work situations in ways that they appraise the potentially stressful situations as less threatening, thus, minimizing their experience of stress [38]. Indeed, research has long recognized that psychological hardiness acts as a protective or buffer factor in coping with work-related stress [42] and a resilience factor against the development of PTSD syndromes [43]. A recent study noted the importance of developing the resilience of nurses in New Zealand in creating a practice environment which reduces workplace bullying [44]. Consistent with these arguments, we argue that psychological hardiness is important in helping nurses cope with workplace bullying.

The COR theory [16] could be used to hypothesize a moderation model where bullying leads to resource depletion among nurses who have resources and where this depletion subsequently reduces health and well-being. The COR theory posits that “people strive to retain, protect and build resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued resources” [16]. Under this theory, workplace bullying is considered as a stressful working condition which brings about employees’ experience with a substantial loss or a depletion of both personal and job-related resources [45]. Therefore, they would utilize other available resources to protect and/or to prevent further resource loss.

Consistent with the COR literature [16], we argue that psychological hardiness is one such protectively personal resource to buffer the negative effects of bullying on psychological stress. Indeed, psychological hardiness can aid stress resistance through its attributes of optimism and resiliency, which explains the tendency that hardy people appraise stressful events less threatening, thus diminishing stress symptoms [41]. As the three sub-dimensions of psychological hardiness were negatively associated with psychological stress [42], previous studies provided evidence for the contribution of psychological hardiness in buffering the negative impacts of stress on the well-being of employees. For instance, hardiness was found to moderate the effect of threats on psychological stress in a sample of 820 undergraduate students in the USA [46]. Workplace bullying can be a source of “threat” to employee work outcomes and well-being [47]. As a result, hardy employees can utilize their high hardiness to dampen the impacts of workplace bullying on their mental health [40, 48].

  • H5a: Psychological hardiness moderates the relationship between workplace bullying and psychological stress such that higher psychological hardiness reduces the positive effect of workplace bullying on psychological bullying.

There is support for psychological hardiness to dampen the influence of psychological stress on accidents and injuries among hardy workers. For instance, hardiness was found to buffer the effect of stress on illness [14]. Nurses with high hardiness in a high-stress circumstance tend to use 57% fewer sick hours than those reported low hardiness and low stress [39]. Hardy employees are likely to cope effectively with stressful work events, which lead to work performance and well-being. This will lead to a reduction in the likelihood of work-related accidents and injuries.

However, there were inconclusive findings on the relationship between psychological hardiness, stress, and health. There was empirical support for the moderation effect of hardiness on stress and symptoms of illness [49]. On the other hand, others did not find any empirical support for psychological hardiness as a moderator [11]. Therefore, more research is needed to further understand the buffering effect of hardiness on workplace accidents and injuries caused by work-related stress.

  • H5b: Psychological hardiness moderates the relationship between psychological stress and workplace accidents and injuries such that higher psychological hardiness reduces the positive effect of psychological stress on workplace accidents and injuries.

Materials and methods

Written consent was granted from the ethics committee of Auckland University of Technology prior to data collection (AUT Ethics Committee; Written approval number: AUTEC Lamm 15/373). We conducted two studies to test the hypothesized model. We utilized IBM AMOS version 25 to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for each of the previously validated scales used in this study. Cut-offs for the goodness of fit indices for the scale validity and the estimation of measurement model were consistent with the recommendation in the literature for structural equations modelling [50]. Written ethics approval was obtained from the university’s ethics committee prior to data collection (AUT Ethics Committee; Written approval number: AUTEC Lamm 15/373).

Overview of studies

We tested the hypotheses in two field studies. In Study 1, we tested the mediating effect of psychological stress on the relationship of workplace bullying with workplace accidents and injuries using a sample of Australian nurses. A second study was designed to replicate and validate the findings from Study 1. In addition, we test the buffering effects of psychological hardiness on workplace bullying → psychological stress → accidents and injuries (H5) with a sample of nurses from New Zealand.

Study 1: Australian nurses

A market research company from Australia provided assistance with data collection. Australian nurses who were older than 18 years and resident of Australia were invited to complete the online survey in 2015 (approximate response rate 26%). We received completed surveys from 287 respondents. Most of the respondents (69.7%) were female and approximately half of the respondents were employed in public sector hospitals. Of the respondents, 85.7% were younger than 50 years old. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents did not hold a supervisory position. Additionally, the majority (75.3%) were full-time nurses. Finally, most of the respondents had less than 5 years of organizational tenure.

Measures

Workplace bullying

Workplace bullying was measured by using the nine-item NAQ-R short form [51]. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they experienced the negative acts at work, ranging from ‘1’ never to ‘5’ daily. A sample item included ‘social exclusion from co-workers or work-group activities’.

Psychological stress

Psychological stress was measured using the K-10 Kessler Psychological Stress scale [52], ranging from ‘1’ none of the time to ‘5’ all of the time. A sample item was ‘did you feel so nervous that nothing could calm you down?’

Workplace accidents and injuries

We used five types of workplace accidents injuries typically found in organizations [10, 11, 53, 54]. The respondents were asked to indicate their agreement on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘very rarely/never’ to ‘very often (several times an hour). Sample items included ‘Work-related accidents and or injuries from “trips, slips and falls”‘.

Control variables

In this study, we controlled for: age [34], gender [14, 33], supervisory role [55], and organizational tenure [21]. These variables have been shown to have a confounding effect on the latent constructs.

Discriminant analysis

To minimize common method variance (CMV), we utilized procedural remedies and post hoc statistical checks (such as Harman’s single-factor model test and “social desirability” scale as the marker variable) to ensure CMV is of no major concern [56]. Harman’s single-factor resulted in five factors where the largest factor accounted for 39.2% variance. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale [57] was incorporated into the model as marker variable [58]. The test showed that the difference of the correlations between exogenous and endogenous variables before and after including the marker variable was 0.09, below the cut-off value of 0.2 [58]. These findings indicated that CMV was not a major issue in this study.

We also conducted Chi-square nested model tests to compare the changes in λ2 of the hypothesized three-factor model with that of alternative models for discriminant validity (Table 1). Results showed that the preferred model has a satisfactory fit with the data (λ2/df = 1.923, df = 224, CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.969, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.037).

Table 1. Results for Chi-square difference test in Study 1.

Model χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Δχ2 from 3-factor model
3-factor model (WB, PS, A&I) 430.72 224 0.975 0.969 0.057 0.0371
2-factor model (WB, PS+A&I) 1137.709 226 0.889 0.864 0.119 0.1108 706.989 (df = 2), ***
1-factor model (WB+PS+A&I) 1993.598 227 0.785 0.738 0.165 0.1290 885.889 (df = 1), ***

Note: WB = workplace bullying; PS = psychological stress; A&I = accidents and injuries

***p<0.001.

Results: Study 1

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are reported in Table 2. Male nurses experienced higher level of workplace bullying (β = 0.18, p<0.01) and more workplace accidents and injuries (β = 0.22, p<0.001). Older respondents had more tenure in their hospital (β = 0.46, p<0.01). These control variables were incorporated into model testing.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations in Study 1.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 1.70 0.46 1.00
2. Gender 3.99 1.30 0.05 1.00
3. Supervisory role 1.61 0.49 0.10 -0.06 1.00
4. Tenure 3.02 1.22 0.01 0.46** -0.07 1.00
5. WB 1.93 0.94 -0.18** -0.30*** -0.10 -0.21*** 1.00
6. PS 2.30 0.98 -0.07 -0.34*** 0.00 -0.33*** 0.71*** 1.00
7. A&I 3.32 1.61 -0.22*** -0.27*** -0.11 -0.28*** 0.57*** 0.56*** 1.00

Note: N = 287 Australian nurses, Gender (‘1’ male, ‘2’ female), Supervisory role (‘1’ yes, ‘0’ no), SD: standard deviation

**p<0.01

***p<0.001.

Path analysis showed that workplace bullying had a positive association with psychological stress (β = 0.72, p<0.001) and workplace accidents and injuries (β = 0.52, p<0.001). Psychological stress had a positive association with workplace accidents and injuries (β = 0.29, p<0.001). Psychological stress was a partial mediator of the effect of workplace bullying on accidents and injuries (effect = 0.351, se = 0.089, 95%CI = 0.219, 0.510).

In summary, Study 1 provided empirical support for Hypotheses 1 to 4. Consistent with the literature and the AET perspective [23], nurses reacted negatively to having experienced negative workplace events such as bullying exposure results in psychological stress [5]. We contributed to the literature by empirically showed the direct relationship between psychological stress and workplace accidents and injuries.

Study 2: New Zealand nurses

Study 2 was designed to test the moderated mediation model. Data were collected from a cross-sectional sample of 201 New Zealand nurses in 2016. Most of the respondents were female and the majority were from the North Island (such as Auckland, Wellington, and Hamilton) and Christchurch in the South Island. Nearly half of the respondents were between 26–40, followed by 51–60 years old (15.4%). A large majority were full-time employees.

Measures

We used the same three variables from Study 1 with the same rating scales. Similar to Study 1, we controlled for confounding effects with the same set of demographic variables. Also, we introduced psychological hardiness as a moderator into Study 2 to replicate the findings from Study 1 and to test the moderation hypotheses. Psychological hardiness was measured using a six-item scales [15], ranging from ‘1’ strongly disagree to ‘7’ strongly agree. We used a total score approach by combining the scores from the three sub-dimensions (commitment, control, and challenge) into a second order, composite hardiness score (sample item includes ‘despite setbacks, I remain committed to accomplishing job tasks’).

Discriminant analysis

Discriminant analysis was undertaken with a series of Chi-square nested model tests (see Table 3), by comparing the four-factor (hypothesized model) with alternate models. Results showed that the hypothesized four-factor model had the best fit (λ2/df = 1.728, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.07). We conducted the incorporation of a marker variable (social desirability) to check for CMV. The test showed that the difference of the correlations between endogenous and exogenous variables before and after including the marker variable was 0.13, below the cut-off value of 0.2 [58], indicating that CMV was not a major issue.

Table 3. Results for Chi-squared comparison test in Study 2.

Model χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Δχ2 from 4-factor model
4-factor model (WB, PS, PH, A&I) 800.074 463 0.938 0.929 0.060 0.063
3-factor model (WB, PS, PH+A&I) 1180.462 466 0.868 0.851 0.088 0.107 380.388 (df = 3)***
2-factor model (WB, PS+PH+A&I) 1566.952 468 0.798 0.772 0.108 0.124 386.49 (df = 2)***
1-factor model (WB+PS+PH+A&I) 1808.407 469 0.753 0.722 0.119 0.138 241.455 (df = 1)***

Note: WB = workplace bullying; PS = psychological stress; PH = psychological hardiness; A&I = accidents and injuries

***p<0.001.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation coefficients are reported in Table 4. Female respondents were older, held supervisory positions, and had more tenure. Supervisors had more experienced in the organization. As a result of the bivariate analysis, these control variables were also incorporate into the path analyses.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations in Study 2.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age 3.15 1.55 1.00
2. Gender 1.76 0.43 0.23** 1.00
3. SR 0.30 0.46 0.30*** 0.07 1.00
4. Tenure 2.99 1.31 0.57*** 0.23** 0.28*** 1.00
5. WB 1.73 0.85 -0.22** -0.22** 0.03 -0.22** 1.00
6. PS 1.06 0.39 -0.30*** -0.13 -0.08 -0.33*** 0.60*** 1.00
7. PH 4.42 0.64 0.24*** 0.30*** 0.14 0.23** -0.30*** -0.31*** 1.00
8. A&I 1.49 0.90 -0.32*** -0.25*** -0.02 -0.30*** 0.66*** 0.59*** -0.38*** 1.00

Note: N = 201 New Zealand nurses, Gender (‘1’ male, ‘2’ female), SR: Supervisory role (‘1’ yes, ‘0’ no), SD: Standard Deviation

**p<0.01

***p<0.001.

Results of the path modelling showed tenure to have a negative association with psychological stress (β = -0.13, p<0.05) and workplace accidents and injuries (β = -0.21, p<0.001), respectively. As shown in Fig 2, there was support for Hypotheses 1–4 which demonstrated a mediational model (b = 0.15, SE = 0.05, 95%CIs = 0.07, 0.24). Using the Johnson–Neymann (J–N) technique, we found psychological hardiness was found to buffer the effect of workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries (b = -0.20, SE = 0.04, 95%CIs = -0.25, -0.49, p<0.001). Mediation analysis was performed using the estimand plug-in [59] in IBM AMOS version 25. Psychological hardiness was found to be a moderator of the indirect effect of workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries as mediated by psychological stress (b = 0.12, SE = 0.05, 95%CIs = 0.04, 0.22, p<0.05). This finding provides support for Hypothesis 5b. As shown by the moderation plot (Fig 3), in the presence of high psychological hardiness, this would reduce the negative impact of psychological stress on workplace accidents and injuries. In summary, the model supported a moderated mediation model where psychological stress was a partial mediator of the effect of workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries.

Fig 2. Results of hypotheses testing in Study 2.

Fig 2

Note: N = 201, *p<0.05, ***p<0.001.

Fig 3. Moderation of psychological hardiness on stress and accidents and injuries.

Fig 3

Discussion

Theoretical implications

This study aimed to test a moderated mediation model using two samples of nurses where we hypothesized that the negative impact of workplace bullying on accidents and injuries at work would be mediated by psychological stress. The indirect effect of workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries through psychological stress were then moderated by the degree of psychological hardiness. Our findings contribute new insights into the limited knowledge of the workplace safety of nurses in the context of workplace bullying.

The AET [23] posits that employees would react emotionally to the negative affective events like workplace bullying that would affect their subsequent behaviors, attitudes, and well-being in responding to the respective event [5]. We supported previous studies [45] by providing strong support for a partial mediation model, where psychological stress as the mediator, contributed to workplace accidents and injuries when nurses encounter workplace bullying. Stated differently, our study provided support for the evidence that workplace bullying exposure could result in accidents and injuries [34] via psychological stress [5].

As the COR theory [16] posits, the prevalence of workplace bullying is perceived to be a stressful working condition that could develop perceptions of substantial resource threats or loss or the experience of resource depletion [45]. As previously argued, psychological hardiness is a type of protective personal resources that individuals can utilize to preserve other resources or prevent further resource loss in coping with stress [38, 43]. While we did not find the role of psychological hardiness in buffering the negative consequences of workplace bullying on psychological stress (H5a), we did find psychological hardiness to buffer the effect of psychological stress on workplace accidents and injuries (H5b). This was due to the partial mediation effect of psychological stress caused by workplace bullying (H4). The significant finding in our study supported the existing literature using psychological hardiness as the moderator for psychological stress [17, 46]. Indeed, individuals with high positive affectivity are less likely to perceive workplace bullying and are of low risk to become targets of bullying [60]. On the other hand, individuals high in negative affectivity are more likely to feel bullied or mistreated because they are more sensitive and more reactive to negative events [61]. Therefore, we concluded that nurses who are high in hardiness are less likely to experience bullying than those who are low in hardiness.

Practical and managerial implications

Our findings have several practical implications. To minimize the prevalence of workplace bullying, several strategies could be used to attract and select managers who do not demonstrate laissez-faire leadership behaviors [62] or Machiavellian behaviors [63]. Similarly, selection strategies could be adopted to ensure newcomers do not fit the profile of bullies [30]. Senior management must take an ethical stand in promoting “ethical work environments devoid of interpersonal mistreatment” [64], which is consistent with the work environment hypothesis in explaining workplace bullying [7].

Various strategies could be developed to build on the three dimensions of psychological hardiness (such as commitment, control, and challenge). For example, HR managers could consider the implementation of educational programs to improve the resilience [8] and or psychological hardiness of nurses [65]. Henderson used a hardiness training program as an intervention tool to educate nurses on developing strategies to strengthen the three dimensions of psychological hardiness (i.e. commitment, control, and challenge) and supplemented this with specific strategies for nurses to practice their assertiveness, active involvement (instead of avoidance) in stressful events and view these challenges as growth opportunity [65]. Through education intervention programs, nurses would be given the psychological resources to buffer the negative consequences of negative workplace behaviors [10]. This is consistent with the COR perspective [16].

The above intervention examples were included in a recently developed typology [66]. Caponecchia et al. identified 11 core intervention types (investigation, codes of conduct, policy; EAP and counselling, bullying awareness training, coaching, system-wide intervention, skills training and development, values statements, local resolution, and organizational redesign). HR professionals could consider implementing these interventions to enhance the well-being of nurses. More research is also needed to examine the effectiveness of primary versus secondary versus tertiary interventions [67] as these could have a different impact on training nurses to effectively deal with their exposure to workplace bullying.

Limitations and future implications

The current study found that CMV is not a major concern through some statistical checks for common method variance as well as the significant impacts of moderated mediation [56]. We still acknowledged that the findings could potentially be affected by a single source bias. Therefore, future studies could rely on objective organizational data on accidents and injuries instead of relying on self-reported data from the participants.

Consistent with the AET, future research could adopt self-regulation theory to collect multi-source data to evaluate how nurses regulate their emotions resulting from the exposure to workplace bullying [68]. Another possibility is to design studies to collect longitudinal data to test for the effect of workplace bullying on individual and work safety outcomes [24]. Future study could potentially collect data such as the ward/unit as these could control for unit-level variances on work environment, which could affect the prevalence of exposure to workplace bullying [69, 70].

Conclusion

In conclusion, psychological hardiness was found to be a moderator of the partial mediation effect of psychological stress due to workplace bullying on workplace accidents and injuries. This study contributed to the knowledge of psychological hardiness and was consistent with literature [15]. We concluded that when nurses possessed a high level of psychological hardiness, they were better at being resilient and possess the ability to cope effectively when they experience negative treatments at work.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOC)

Data Availability

The full data set cannot be shared publicly because formal approval was not granted by the Ethics Committee. However, all relevant data necessary to replicate the study's results are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by the Auckland University of Technology as a research grant awarded to Teo, Lamm and Boocock. Authors Trevelyan, Lamm, and Boocock are full time employees of the funder (Auckland University of Technology).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI). 2017 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey. 2017; https://www.workplacebullying.org/wbiresearch/wbi-2017-survey/, accessed 02/02/2019
  • 2.Fevre R Lewis D, Robinson A, Jones T. Insight into ill-treatment in the workplace: Patterns, causes and solutions. Cardiff: Cardiff University; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Heron L, Bruk-Lee V. When empowered nurses are under stress: Understanding the impact on attitudes and behaviours. Stress and Health. 2020; 36: 147–159. 10.1002/smi.2905 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hartin P, Birks M, Lindsay D. Bullying and the nursing profession in Australia: An integrative review of the literature. Collegian. 2018; 25(6): 613–619. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Branch S, Ramsay S, Barker M. Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2013; 15: 280–299. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors: Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice. USA: CRC Press; 2011:3–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Trépanier S-G, Fernet C, Austin S, Boudrias V. Work environment antecedents of bullying: A review and integrative model applied to registered nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2016; 55: 85–97. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Foster K, Cuzzillo C, Furness T. Strengthening mental health nurses’ resilience through a workplace resilience programme: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2018; 25(5–6): 338–348. 10.1111/jpm.12467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bailey TS, Dollard MF, McLinton SS, Richards PA. Psychosocial safety climate, psychosocial and physical factors in the aetiology of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms and workplace injury compensation claims. Work & Stress. 2015; 29(2): 190–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Caring for our caregivers: facts about hospital worker safety. US Department of Labor. 2013; https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hospitals/understanding_problem.html, accessed 30/01/2019.
  • 11.Salminen S, Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. Stress factors predicting injuries of hospital personnel. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2003; 44(1): 32–36. 10.1002/ajim.10235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu Y, Zheng J, Liu K, Baggs JG, Liu J, Liu X, et al. The associations of occupational hazards and injuries with work environments and overtime for nurses in China. Research in Nursing Health. 2018; 41(4): 346–354. 10.1002/nur.21882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Christian M, Bradley J, Wallace J, Burke M. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009; 94(5): 1103–1103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kobasa SC. Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37(1): 1–11. 10.1037//0022-3514.37.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cole MS, Bruch H, Vogel B. Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2006; 27(4): 463–484. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. 1989; 44(3): 513–524. 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Harms P, Credé M, Tynan M., Leon M., & Jeung W. Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly. 2017; 28(1): 178–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hanrahan NP, Kumar A, Aiken LH. Adverse events associated with organizational factors of general hospital inpatient psychiatric care environments. Psychiatric Services. 2010; 61(6): 569–574. 10.1176/ps.2010.61.6.569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Van Bogaert P, Timmermans O, Weeks SM, van Heusden D, Wouters K, Franck E. Nursing unit teams matter: Impact of unit-level nurse practice environment, nurse work characteristics, and burnout on nurse reported job outcomes, and quality of care, and patient adverse events-A cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2014; 51: 1123–1134. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kim Y, Lee E, Lee H. Association between workplace bullying and burnout, professional quality of life, and turnover intention among clinical nurses. PLoS one. 2019; 14(12): e0226506 10.1371/journal.pone.0226506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Giorgi G, Mancuso S, Fiz Perez F, Castiello D’Antonio A, Mucci N, et al. Bullying among nurses and its relationship with burnout and organizational climate. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2016; 22(2): 160–168. 10.1111/ijn.12376 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Berry PA, Gillespie GL, Fisher BS, Gormley D, Haynes JT. Psychological distress and workplace bullying among registered nurses. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. 2016; 21(3): 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brunetto Y, Xerri M, Trinchero E, Farr-Wharton R, Shacklock K, Borgonovi E. Public–private sector comparisons of nurses’ work harassment using SET: Italy and Australia. Public Management Review. 2016; 18(10): 1479–1503. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors: Research in Organizational Behavior. CT: JAI Press; 1996: 1–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nielsen MB, Hetland J, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. Longitudinal relationships between workplace bullying and psychological distress. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment Health. 2012; 38(1): 38–46. 10.5271/sjweh.3178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rodwell J, Demir D. Psychological consequences of bullying for hospital and aged care nurses. International Nursing Review. 2012; 59(4): 539–546. 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2012.01018.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Allen BC, Holland P, Reynolds R. The effect of bullying on burnout in nurses: the moderating role of psychological detachment. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2015; 71(2): 381–390. 10.1111/jan.12489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Safety alert! Intimidation: Practitioners speak up about this unresolved problem Part I. 2004; https://www.ismp.org/resources/intimidation-practitioners-speak-about-unresolved-problem-part-i [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 29.Wilson BL, Phelps C. Horizontal hostility: A threat to patient safety. Journal of Nursing Administration’s Healthcare Law, Ethics, and Regulation. 2013; 15(1): 51–57. 10.1097/NHL.0b013e3182861503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lee YJ, Bernstein K, Lee M, Nokes KM. Bullying in the nursing workplace: Applying evidence using a conceptual framework. Nursing Economics. 2014; 325: 255–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Purpora C, Blegen MA, Stotts NA. Hospital staff registered nurses' perception of horizontal violence, peer relationships, and the quality and safety of patient care. Work. 2015; 51(1): 29–37. 10.3233/WOR-141892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.McCaughey D, Kimmel A, Savage G, Lukas T, Walsh E, Halbesleben J. Antecedents to workplace injury in the health care industry: A synthesis of the literature. Health Care Management Review. 2016; 41(1): 42–55. 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zadow AJ, Dollard MF, McLinton SS, Lawrence P, Tuckey MR. Psychosocial safety climate, emotional exhaustion, and work injuries in healthcare workplaces. Stress and Health. 2017; 33(5): 558–569. 10.1002/smi.2740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lesuffleur T, Chastang J-F, Sandret N, Niedhammer I. Psychosocial factors at work and occupational injury: Results from the French National SUMER Survey. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2015; 57(3): 262–269. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nielsen MB, Nielsen GH, Notelaers G, Einarsen S. Workplace bullying and suicidal ideation: A 3-wave longitudinal Norwegian study. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105(11): E23–E28. 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lambrechts M-C, Tobutt C, Bijl R. How to deal with the problematic use of alcohol in relation to job performance Tobutt C, editor: Alcohol at Work: Managing Alcohol Problems and Issues in the Workplace. London: Routledge; 2011: 129–154. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01889.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Day AJ, Brasher K, Bridger RS. Accident proneness revisited: The role of psychological stress and cognitive failure. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2012; 49: 532–535. 10.1016/j.aap.2012.03.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Britt TW, Adler AB, Bartone PT. Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2001; 61: 53–63. 10.1037//1076-8998.6.1.53 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Judkins S, Massey C, Huff B. Hardiness, stress, and use of ill-time among nurse managers: Is there a connection? Nursing Economics. 2006; 24: 187–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kobasa SC, Maddi SR, Kahn S. Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 42(1): 168–177. 10.1037//0022-3514.42.1.168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Maddi SR. Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. Journal of Positive Psychology. 2006; 13: 160–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Eschleman KJ, Bowling NA, Alarcon GM. A meta-analytic examination of hardiness. International Journal of Stress Management. 2010; 17(4): 277–307. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Thomassen AG, Hystad SW, Johnsen BH, Johnsen GE, Bartone PT. The effect of hardiness on PTSD symptoms: A prospective mediational approach. Military Psychology. 2018; 30(2): 142–151. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tabakakis C, McAllister M, Bradshaw J, To QG. Psychological resilience in New Zealand registered nurses: The role of workplace characteristics. Journal of Nursing Management. 2019; 27(7): 1351–1358. 10.1111/jonm.12815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Conway PM, Clausen T, Hansen M, Hogh A. Workplace bullying and sickness presenteeism: Cross-sectional and prospective associations in a 2-year follow-up study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2016; 89(1): 103–114. 10.1007/s00420-015-1055-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wiebe DJ. Hardiness and stress moderation: A test of proposed mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991; 60(1): 89–99. 10.1037//0022-3514.60.1.89 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bond SA, Tuckey MR, Dollard MF. Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization Development Journal. 2010; 28(1): 37–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Reknes I, Harris A, Einarsen S. The role of hardiness in the bullying-mental health relationship. Occupational Medicine. 2018; 68(1): 64–66. 10.1093/occmed/kqx183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Klag S, Bradley G. The role of hardiness in stress and illness: An exploration of the effect of negative affectivity and gender. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2004; 92: 137–161. 10.1348/135910704773891014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, New York and London: 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Notelaers G, Van der Heijden B, Hoel H, Einarsen S. Measuring bullying at work with the short-negative acts questionnaire: identification of targets and criterion validity. Work & Stress. 2019; 33(1): 58–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK, Normand S-LT, et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine. 2002; 32: 959–976. 10.1017/s0033291702006074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hemingway MA, Smith CS. Organizational climate and occupational stressors as predictors of withdrawal behaviours and injuries in nurses. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1999; 72(3): 285–299. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Zacharatos A, Barling J, Iverson RD. High-performance work systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90(1): 77–93. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Garrosa E, Moreno-Jiménez B, Liang Y, González JL. The relationship between socio-demographic variables, job stressors, burnout, and hardy personality in nurses: An exploratory study. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2008; 45(3): 418–427. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012; 63: 539–569. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Reynolds WM. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1982; 38(1): 119–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86(1): 114–121. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gaskin J. Specific Indirect Effects_Path and Serial Mediation estimand. Gaskination’s Statistics. 2016; http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com. 10.1080/02331888.2015.1111892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bowling NA, Beehr TA, Bennett MM, Watson CP. Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis. Work & Stress. 2010; 24(2): 140–158. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hershcovis MS, Turner N, Barling J, Arnold KA. Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92(1): 228–238. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nguyen D, Teo STT, Grover S, Nguyen PN. Laissez-faire leadership behaviours in the public sector in Vietnam Muenjohn N, McMurray A, editors: The Palgrave Handbook of Leadership in Transforming Asia. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017: 397–415. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Valentine S, Fleischman G. From schoolyard to workplace: The impact of bullying on sales and business employees’ Machiavellianism, job satisfaction, and perceived importance of an ethical issue. Human Resource Management. 2018; 57: 293–305. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mackey J, Brees J, McAllister C, Zorn M, Martinko M, Harvey P. Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 153(3): 659–673. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Henderson J. The effect of hardiness education on hardiness and burnout on registered nurses. Nursing Economics. 2015; 33(4): 204–209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Caponecchia C, Branch S, Murray J. Development of a taxonomy of workplace bullying intervention types: Informing research directions and supporting organizational decision making. Group Organization Management. 2019; 10.1177/1059601118820966 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Nielsen MB, Einarsen SV. What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2018; 42: 71–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Prem R, Kubicek B, Diestel S, Korunka C. Regulatory job stressors and their within-person relationships with ego depletion: The roles of state anxiety, self-control effort, and job autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2016; 92: 22–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Houshmand M, O’Reilly J, Robinson S, Wolff A. Escaping bullying: The simultaneous impact of individual and unit-level bullying on turnover intentions. Human Relations. 2012; 65(7): 901–918. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Sheehan M, McCabe TJ, Garavan TN. Workplace bullying and employee outcomes: a moderated mediated model, The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2018; 10.1080/09585192.2017.1406390 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sergio A Useche

27 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-12891

Workplace Bullying, Psychological Hardiness, and Accidents and Injuries in Nursing: A Moderated Mediation Model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Teo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your paper has been reviewed by two acknowledged experts in the field of knowledge covered by the study. Overall, the comments are very positive, and the paper seems to have good potential to be considered for publication in PLOS ONE. Nevertheless, there are some comments and queries provided by the reviewers that need your attention, through a revision of the manuscript. Concretely, some miscellaneous (but essential) points need to be clarified, focusing in the study setting and the ethical proceeding followed for its performance. Additionally, the limitations of the study must be improved and explicitly stated and discussed in the light of their potential impact on the results. Finally, the second Reviewer states that the manuscript is excessively long; please try to synthesize some parts of the paper, where the information is repetitive or redundant.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 11 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

'The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is a very well written manuscript. You have studied a really important field and you reached some valuable conclusions that reseach community can gain from that. Methodology and results are appropriatelly described.

Reviewer #2: dear Authors

My suggestions as bellow:

1- Please update reference Fevre and colleagues (2011) and information about the UK.

2- Please write research ethics: ethical code, getting Satisfaction.

3- Please add time of research.

4- Please describe research limitations.

5- I think type of wards in which the nurses studied worked is important. Can be added.

6- Manuscript is too long.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 8;16(1):e0244426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244426.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Nov 2020

06 Nov 2020 Comment from the Journal Editorial Office:

1.) Please confirm whether the data now located in your manuscript and/or Supporting information files constitutes the minimal data set. The minimal data set is defined as the data set used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript with related metadata and methods, and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. This may include: a.) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; b.) The values used to build graphs; c.) The points extracted from images for analysis (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

I can confirm this requirement has been addressed.

2.) If so, please confirm whether the following information is accurate, and whether we may update your Data Availability Statement accordingly on your behalf:

"The full data set cannot be shared publicly because formal approval was not granted by the Ethics Committee. However, all relevant data necessary to replicate the study's results are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

The above statement is correct.

We have also addressed all of the additional requirements requested by the Editorial Office - please refer to our letter.

Reviewer 1: It is a very well written manuscript. You have studied a really important field and you reached some valuable conclusions that research community can gain from that. Methodology and results are appropriately described.

Authors: Thank you for your support and comments about the contribution of our paper.

Reviewer 2:

1. Please update reference Fevre and colleagues (2011) and information about the UK.

Authors: We have updated the reference according to this journal’s preferred referencing style.

Fevre et al (2011) and the UK context was correctly referenced in the original manuscript (please refer to page 3). We can confirm that the original reference used in the manuscript was correct (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258206731_Insight_into_ill-treatment_patterns_causes_and_solutions/link/57fb640608ae8da3ce60d58d/download).

2. Please write research ethics: ethical code, getting Satisfaction.

Authors: This was reported in the manuscript portal: Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (number: Lamm 15373).

3. Please add time of research.

Authors: The research was undertaken over 2015 and 2016 as there were two studies in the paper. Please refer to p. 10 and p.12.

4. Please describe research limitations.

Authors: Research limitation was already written into the original manuscript. Please see the revised section on page 16-17.

5. I think type of wards in which the nurses studied worked is important. Can be added.

Authors: This is a great idea. As the study is based on a cross sectional dataset, we did not collect any information on the ward of the participants. This is now listed as a suggestion for future study (see page 16-17).

6. Manuscript is too long.

Authors: We have shortened the manuscript and the number of references. Its current length is 4670 words (excluding references, tables, and figures).

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE D 20 12891 reviewers comments.doc

Decision Letter 1

Sergio A Useche

10 Dec 2020

Workplace Bullying, Psychological Hardiness, and Accidents and Injuries in Nursing: A Moderated Mediation Model

PONE-D-20-12891R1

Dear Dr. Teo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): Authors have done a good revision. The paper can be accepted as it is.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Sergio A Useche

15 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-12891R1

Workplace Bullying, Psychological Hardiness, and Accidents and Injuries in Nursing: A Moderated Mediation Model

Dear Dr. Teo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sergio A. Useche

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE D 20 12891 reviewers comments.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    The full data set cannot be shared publicly because formal approval was not granted by the Ethics Committee. However, all relevant data necessary to replicate the study's results are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES