Aim To critically review empirical research about work engagement in nursing and to synthesise the findings to better understand this construct. Background Empirical research shows that engagement is positively related to work performance, workers’ health and client loyalty in different professions. It is, therefore, necessary to increase our understanding about engagement in nursing. Evaluation An integrative literature search was conducted to identify articles and studies on work engagement in nursing that were published between January 1990 and December 2013 in the following databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE and CINAHL. Key issues The factors that influence engagement were divided into four areas of analysis: organisational antecedents; individual antecedents; and factors related to managers’ leadership and outcomes of engagement. Conclusion There is clear evidence that the quality of care by nurses improves through engagement. However, this depends on contextual factors such as structural empowerment and social support and on dispositional factors such as efficacy and optimism. It is also evident that nurse managers are key to promoting engagement. Implications for nursing management Nursing managers and leaders may promote improvements in leadership behaviours and a context of optimism and self‐efficacy as a way of increasing work engagement.

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) appear to be effective for improving the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the effectiveness of MBIs on extreme psychological trauma caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is largely unknown. The aim of this paper was to systematically review empirical studies of MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate them and their effectiveness in different areas of mental health. Methods: The electronic databases searched were Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. The date when each database was last searched was September 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), and non-randomized non-controlled trials (NRNCTs) focused on MBIs for health care staff who were working in healthcare centers during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. All of them employed standardized measures of mental health. The review followed the best practices and reported using PRISMA guidelines. A data collection form, adapted from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, was used to extract and synthesize the results. The methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies were the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the ROBINS-I Tool. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. The results showed the effectiveness of MBIs in improving levels of stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being. However, no conclusive results were found regarding the effectiveness of MBIs in improving the levels of burnout, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and resilience of HCPs. Conclusions: The MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly contributed to improving stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being at a time of serious health emergency. However, more robust studies at a methodological level would have been desirable. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021267621

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is a paucity of data on long-term neuroimaging findings from individuals who have developed the post-coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Only 2 studies have investigated the correlations between cognitive assessment results and structural MR imaging in this population. This study aimed to elucidate the long-term cognitive outcomes of participants with the post-COVID-19 condition and to correlate these cognitive findings with structural MR imaging data in the post-COVID-19 condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 53 participants with the post-COVID-19 condition underwent 3T brain MR imaging with T1 and FLAIR sequences obtained a median of 1.8 years after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. A comprehensive neuropsychological battery was used to assess several cognitive domains in the same individuals. Correlations between cognitive domains and whole-brain voxel-based morphometry were performed. Different ROIs from FreeSurfer were used to perform the same correlations with other neuroimaging features. RESULTS: According to the Frascati criteria, more than one-half of the participants had deficits in the attentional (55%, n = 29) and executive (59%, n = 31) domains, while 40% (n = 21) had impairment in the memory domain. Only 1 participant (1.89%) showed problems in the visuospatial and visuoconstructive domains. We observed that reduced cortical thickness in the left parahippocampal region (t(48) = 2.28, P = .03) and the right caudal-middle-frontal region (t(48) = 2.20, P = .03) was positively correlated with the memory domain. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that cognitive impairment in individuals with the post-COVID-19 condition is associated with long-term alterations in the structure of the brain. These macrostructural changes may provide insight into the nature of cognitive symptoms.