DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17938264
title: Portuguese Nurses' Working Conditions, Self-Efficacy and Prosocial Motivation Dataset (ANACT-based)

description: This dataset collects information from a sample of 285 nursing professionals who work in hospitals and aims to analyze working conditions and relevant personal resources from the perspective of occupational health psychology. Specifically, the data was collected at the Faro District Hospital (Portugal), ensuring the anonymity of the participants at all times and the use of the data exclusively for academic and research purposes. A total of 471 surveys were distributed in sealed envelopes by the heads of service, and 309 were collected (65% participation), of which 24 were eliminated because they were incomplete, leaving a final total of 285, just over 60% of those eligible, according to the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:- Inclusion criteria: Nurses who provided direct care to users and were willing to participate voluntarily.- Exclusion criteria: Being, at the time of data collection, undergoing treatment for any illness or absent due to vacation, sick leave, or maternity leave.Working conditions were assessed using the ANACT (Agence Nationale pour l’Amélioration des Conditions de Travail, 1984) Working Conditions Self-Assessment Questionnaire, a diagnostic and preventive tool aimed at identifying problematic work situations and prioritizing improvement actions, rather than calculating overall psychometric scores.Personal resources were assessed using the General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale and the Prosocial Motivations Questionnaire for Health Professionals, both widely used instruments with adequate theoretical and empirical support. Self-efficacy is conceived as a generalized belief in one's own ability to cope with demanding situations, while prosocial motivation is approached from a functional perspective, which distinguishes different motivational functions involved in helping behaviors.The data has been anonymized, contains no personally identifiable information, and is intended exclusively for academic and research purposes, allowing for secondary analysis at the group level in the fields of occupational health, nursing, and psychosocial risk prevention.
description: 2. Variables included and instruments used2.1. Questionnaire on sociolabor variablesSociolabor variables were collected using an ad hoc questionnaire designed to characterize the personal, educational, and professional profiles of the participating nursing professionals. The questionnaire included basic sociodemographic variables and variables related to professional career and job performance conditions.Specifically, the following variables were collected:2.1.1. Sociodemographic variables•    Gender (male/female).•    Age, recorded as a continuous variable.•    Personal relationships, with three ordinal categories: cohabitation or regular relationship, relationship without cohabitation or non-regular, and absence of a partner.•    Number of children, collected as an ordinal variable.•    Level of education, with four levels ranging from compulsory secondary education or lower to postgraduate university studies.2.1.2. Training and professional variables•    Specialization in nursing (yes/no).•    Type of specialty, if applicable (maternal-child and obstetric health, child and pediatric health, medical-surgical and geriatrics, mental health and psychiatry, rehabilitation, health administration and management, community health). In cases where this was not applicable, this variable was coded as a specific missing value.•    Total professional experience, expressed in years.•    Professional category, differentiating between nurse, registered nurse, specialist nurse, and nursing management or leadership positions.•    Professional experience in the current category, recorded as a continuous variable.2.1.3. Variables related to employment status and work organization•    Employment status, differentiating between permanent and temporary employment relationships.•    Department or work unit, grouped into hospitalization, outpatient/ambulatory care, and critical or highly complex care areas.•    Work schedule, classified as fixed or rotating/shift work.•    Accumulation of duties, indicated by a dichotomous response (yes/no).•    Number of patients seen per day.• Number of hours worked per week, collected as an ordinal variable.• Percentage of the working day devoted to direct interaction with patients, measured using an ordinal scale with five categories, from “more than 80%” to “20% or less.”All variables were coded numerically for statistical analysis, respecting their level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, or scale). In cases where the question was not applicable or was not answered, specific codes for missing values were used, clearly identified in the dataset code book.2.2. Working conditionsThe ANACT Working Conditions Self-Assessment Questionnaire is operationally structured into 27 thematic dimensions, of which 25 refer to different working conditions, ranging from safety aspects, pollutants, physical work environment, job demands, personal protective equipment, to work organization and prevention. The other two refer to preventive warning signs based on the worker's overall perception of the above situations and the symptoms they experience as a result. Except for this last dimension, all the others are composed of a set of specific items, formulated in terms of questions about specific work circumstances, which are answered using a categorical response system (1 = the condition represented is correct, 2 = it is not correct, 3 = I don't know, and 4 = the condition is not relevant to my work). In the case of the dimension on symptoms caused by work, an ordinal frequency scale is used (1 = Often, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Never).These 27 dimensions are grouped into eight functional areas, as detailed in the following table:



The analysis is therefore carried out on two complementary levels: a detailed descriptive level, based on the 27 original dimensions of the questionnaire, and a synthetic and integrative level, based on the eight macro-areas, which allows general patterns of risk, organizational deficits, and training needs to be identified, without losing the wealth of information contained in the original instrument.For all dimensions and thematic areas with categorical responses, the percentage of each category is calculated, paying special attention to the percentage of “no” and “I don't know” responses. The former because they indicate working conditions that represent a problem or potential risk, and the latter because they denote the need for information and training on such aspects.In general, a percentage ≥ 25% is a threshold widely used in preventive assessment to indicate non-marginal problems. A percentage ≥ 50% clearly indicates a widespread problem in the group. Finally, a percentage < 10% is usually considered residual or non-priority.Finally, the symptoms dimension of the ANACT questionnaire serves as a preventive alert and assesses the frequency with which participants experience certain work-related symptoms. The items are answered using a descending ordinal scale (1 = often, 2 = sometimes, 3 = never), so that lower values indicate a higher frequency of the symptom.Correction is performed descriptively, analyzing the percentage distribution of responses per symptom, with special attention to the percentage of “many times” responses as an alert indicator. These results are used to prioritize areas of intervention, without calculating total scores or internal consistency indices, since the dimension does not measure a latent construct but rather perceived effects of work.2.3. Personal resources2.3.1. General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) was used to assess the participants' level of general self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a sociocognitive construct introduced by Bandura, which refers to a person's beliefs about their ability to successfully cope with new, demanding, or challenging situations. In its general formulation, self-efficacy is conceived as a broad and relatively stable feeling of personal competence to handle a wide variety of life demands.The scale was originally developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1981) and subsequently revised by Schwarzer et al. (1997). The abbreviated 10-item version has shown adequate psychometric properties in different cultural contexts, including the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions, with internal consistency coefficients generally ranging between α = .75 and .90, as well as evidence of convergent and discriminant validity.In the present study, the Portuguese version of the scale was used, developed by Sousa Carvalheira (2016) as part of his doctoral thesis, based on the validated Spanish translation of the GSES. This version was previously used in academic research to analyze the relationship between prosocial motivation, working conditions, self-efficacy, and burnout.As this was a linguistic adaptation from a doctoral thesis and not a formal validation published in a scientific journal, specific methodological precautions were taken in its use. In particular, the conceptual equivalence of the items was reviewed with respect to the original version and the Spanish reference version, prioritizing fidelity to the construct of general self-efficacy over literal translations. Likewise, the semantic clarity and linguistic adequacy of the items in the Portuguese used by the sample were checked to ensure their correct understanding.The items assess general perceptions of personal competence in coping with difficulties and solving problems, without reference to specific domains of action.Regarding the response format and correction method, it should be noted that the scale consists of 10 items, with a 4-point Likert-type response format, where:-    1 = Never-    2 = Sometimes-    3 = Often-    4 = AlwaysThe overall self-efficacy index is obtained by directly summing the scores of the 10 items, without reversing any of them.The theoretical total score range is between 10 and 40, with higher scores indicating a greater perception of general self-efficacy.2.3.2. Prosocial Motivations Questionnaire (adapted for health professionals)Instrument. To measure prosocial motivation, the Questionnaire on the Motivations of Volunteers for AIDS Patients (Omoto & Snyder, 1995) was used, adapted into Spanish by Chacón-Fuentes and Vecina-Jiménez (1999) and subsequently adapted into Portuguese for the nursing population by Sousa Carvalheira (2016). In this adaptation, the final version consists of 21 items distributed across four dimensions: Values, Knowledge, Personal Development, and Interest in the Community.Linguistic adaptation used in this study. In our study, we used the Portuguese version by Sousa Carvalheira (2016). This version is based on the Spanish version and makes terminological adjustments (e.g., replacing the term AIDS/HIV-positive with more general formulations), so it is recommended to interpret the results taking into account this origin and possible semantic nuances due to the change of language.Response format. Likert scale from 1 to 7 (1 = “not important at all”; 7 = “very important”), where the participant indicates how important each reason is when it comes to providing care in situations of chronic or serious illness.Items and dimensions.- Values (4 items): items 1–4.- Knowledge (6 items): items 5–10.- Personal Development (6 items): items 11–16.- Interest in the Community (5 items): items 17–21.Correction/scoring.- There are no reverse items.- Scores per dimension can be calculated as a sum (range: 4–28; 6–42; 6–42; 5–35) or as an average (range 1–7 in all).- A total score can be calculated as the mean of the 21 items (1–7) or as the total sum (21–147), depending on the analytical criteria.2.4. Missing values in the dataset.In this dataset, missing values are coded as: 999 = no response; 998 = not applicable (skips/branching). Before correcting, these codes must be declared as missing.
description: 3. Data structure and filesThe dataset is provided in the following formats:·        Dataset_CAMPro.csv·        Dataset_CAMPro.sav(SPSS)·        Dataset_CAMPro.xlsxAdditional documentation:·        README_CAMPro.pdf·        Codebook_CAMPro.pdf (descriptions and coding of variables).
description: 4. Considerations regarding data analysisThe ANACT instrument is a diagnostic and ergonomic tool, not a psychometric scale. Therefore:- Total scores for working conditions are not provided.- Reliability indices (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) are not calculated for ANACT items.- Factor analyses are not recommended or reported.Data should be analyzed using descriptive approaches, focusing on response patterns at the item, dimension, or macro-area level. Aggregation into 8 functional macro-areas can be used for interpretive and preventive purposes.5. Intended useThis dataset is suitable for:- Descriptive studies of nursing working conditions- Research on occupational health and prevention- Methodological or comparative studies using ANACT-based approaches- It is not intended for clinical diagnosis or individual decision-making.

6. Ethics and anonymizationAll data are fully anonymized. No direct or indirect personal identifiers are included. The dataset complies with ethical standards for research involving human participants and with applicable data protection regulations.7. LicenseThis dataset is published for academic and research use under the license specified in the Zenodo registry.8. CitationCite this dataset as:León Rubio, J.M.; León Pérez, J.M. & de Sousa Carvalheira, G.A. (2025). Portuguese Nurses' Working Conditions, Self-Efficacy and Prosocial Motivation (ANACT bases) (1.0) Dataset. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17938265 9. ContactIf you have any questions about the dataset or its use, please contact:José María León Rubio, Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Seville. jmleon@us.es