____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e Review Article Copyright © 2021 Tehran University of Medical Sciences. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited. Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis *Corresponding Author Soolmaz Moosavi Address: Vali-Asr Avenue, Cross of Vali-Asr Avenue and Hashemi Rafsanjani (Neiaiesh) Highway, Opposite to Rajaee Heart Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Postal Code: 1996835119 Tel: (+98) 21 88 20 25 21 Email: Moosavi.soolmaz@sbmu.ac.ir Received: 16 Jan 2021 Accepted: 1 Sep 2021 Published: 3 Nov 2021 Citation to this article: Atashzadeh Shoorideh F, Moosavi S, Balouchi A. Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021; 14: 15. Foroozan Atashzadeh Shoorideh 1, Soolmaz Moosavi 2*, Abbas Balouchi 3 1.Professor, Department of Psychiatric Nursing and Management, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Labbafinezhad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2.Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Labbafinezhad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3.Student Research Committee, PhD Student of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran. Abstract One important part of a nurse’s job is to create and help maintain a safe work environment. Evidence shows that negative behaviors such as incivility are not uncommon in the nursing profession. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the prevalence of incivility toward nurses. For this purpose, all observational studies that primarily investigated the rate of incivility toward nurses were selected. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Sciences, Magiran, IranDoc, and Scopus were searched for studies published during the period of January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2019. The quality of studies was assessed using Hoy’s Critical Assessment Checklist. The study was undertaken using the random effects model, and data were analyzed using STATA14. Data on 60 articles, including data on 30801 individuals, published between 1997 and 2019, entered the study. The findings showed the prevalence of incivility to be 55.10% (95%, CI: 48.05, 62.06). Due to the high prevalence of uncivil behavior, especially of the verbal type, nursing managers should identify risk factors in the workplace. Planners should develop programs to increase workplace safety, especially in centers that are most exposed to these behaviors. It is also recommended that future studies focus on implementation of effective evidence-based interventions based on organizational culture. Keywords: Incivility; Uncivil behavior; Nurses; Workplace violence. Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e Introduction Civility is defined as being polite and kind in disposition and speech. Civil behavior refers to polite behavior toward others and ensuring that their dignity is maintained. On the contrary, incivility is defined as the negative behavior of insulting others or violating the common norms of behavior in the workplace (1). Incivility is a new concept in the psychology of occupational health (1) with most of the related literature being published at the beginning of the current century. In recent years, the increasing number of publications on this topic indicates that incivility occurs more frequently than other extreme behaviors in the work environment. A study by Bjorkqvist et al., showed that 32% of university employees had experienced incivility (2). A study conducted by Duncan reported the rate of incivility toward nurses to be higher than 46% and stated that one- third of nurses had been exposed to physical violence. This study reported that 100% of ER nurses had been exposed to verbal violence and more than 80% to physical violence (3). Incivility was first defined by Anderson and Pearson as “negative behaviors with low- intensity and unclear intention that damage the targeted person” (4). Some of the terms used to describe incivility are lateral violence, disruptive behavior, abuse, conflict, bullying and aggression. These behaviors occur frequently in healthcare environments, lead to numerous negative consequences and can lead to more severe violence (4, 5). Uncivil behaviors include verbal abuse, nonverbal abuse, sexual harassment, and passive aggressive behavior. Verbal abuse involves shouting, raising one’s voice in a hostile manner, threatening a person verbally and overtly scolding or criticizing them, as well as using insulting and disgracing words, disrespectful tones, impoliteness, sarcastic behavior and humiliation (6). Nonverbal abuse includes raising the eyebrows, screwing up the eyes, scowling, creating physical distance, excluding someone from conversations, and/or invading someone’s privacy (7). Sexual harassment may be manifested in the form of inappropriate behaviors that could be construed to have sexual intention, offensive sexual jokes, words that are sexual in nature, unwanted sexual advances, requests for sex and accidental sexual contact (7). Passive aggressive behaviors in the workplace are among uncivil behaviors that can be particularly destructive. They include lack of support for colleagues, plotting against work rivals, refusing to communicate with an individual, impatience with other people’s questions and manifesting a negative attitude, all of which affect colleagues’ confidence (8). Studies on incivility in the work environment suggest that it is often produced by emotionally annoying interactions due to inappropriate demonstrations of anger and anguish, tension, heavy workload, lack of communication, occupational insecurity, organizational change, poor task management, differences in social power Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 3 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e and reciprocal relation of duties (1). These variables, as stressors, may lead to depression and undesirable physical symptoms. Experience of incivility in the work environment is negatively correlated with psychosomatic health (2) and is recognized as the prerequisite for aggressive behaviors and violence in the workplace (5). Individuals enter the workplace with experiences related to their family life, personal values, communication styles, cultural or ethnic prejudices and other events that can affect their attitudes and practices and lead to destructive behaviors in the workplace (9,10). In addition, organizational factors such as power position and a number of irregularities and even some performance improvement schemes such as feedback and incentive systems may lead to non-civil behavior by increasing competition (11). On the other hand, an individual experience of incivility can lead to the continuation of this chain and its expansion by creating a motivation for retaliation (12,13). Generally, creation and maintenance of a safe work environment is included in the nursing role. Disruptive behaviors negatively affect patient outcomes and nursing performance. Therefore, nurses should support patients and help them deal with disruptive behavior to create and maintain a safe environment for giving quality care. A review of previous studies showed that few studies have focused on incivility. Azami et al.’s study investigated incivility toward nurses in Iran; they found that in 26 studies, the rate of prevalence of examined variables including violence and verbal, physical, sexual and racial threat in the work environment were 80.8%, 24.8%, 6.14%, and 44%, respectively (14). A systematic review was carried out by Dalvand et al., to assess violence in Iranian nurses’ work environment. The results showed that 74% of the nurses had been exposed to verbal, and 28% to physical violence. Previous research had also showed a high prevalence of workplace violence toward nurses (15). The systematic review by D’ambra and Andrews was aimed at assessing the effect of incivility on recently-graduated nurses. In this study, sixteen papers were extracted that demonstrated incivility in the workplace to be an important predictor of low job satisfaction among beginner nurses (16). The systematic review by Edward et al. was conducted on the correlation between workplace violence and nurses’ anxiety. The results demonstrated that nurses in emergency wards were more frequently exposed to verbal violence than other wards. The most frequent time of exposure to violence was reported to be the point of direct care of patients, and violence was committed either by the patients or their attendants. As a rule, nurses did not report the violence due to various organizational reasons (17). The review study of sources by Hawkins et al. assessed beginner nurses’ experiences of negative behaviors. The findings suggested that between 3% and 57% of the nurses had Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 4 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e experienced negative behaviors leading to depression, anxiety and work leave (18). The systematic review by Zhu et al. aimed to explore the experience of incivility in nursing students. The results showed that nursing students experienced incivility during their clinical training and confirmed the importance of the managers’ role in reducing these behaviors (19). Finally, a systematic review was conducted by Hodgins et al. to assess effective interventions for decreasing violence and incivility in the workplace. The results revealed that weak interpersonal communication was one of the most important causes of incivility, and that training and awareness of incivility and violence can be effective in reducing the incidence of these behaviors (20). In summary, a review of previous studies shows that systematic reviews on incivility toward nurses are few. Several studies have examined the prevalence of incivility toward specific groups of nurses or in certain countries, regions and limited wards. However, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies on the global prevalence of incivility toward nurses. Also, non-civil behavior in the workplace leads to negative outcomes such as low productivity, conflict, reduced job satisfaction and less organizational commitment; therefore, awareness of this ethical problem can help with the assessment of the current situation as well as effective and realistic planning to prevent and also follow up on the consequences. Subsequently, our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of incivility toward nurses. Methods Design of the Study This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on observational studies concerning the prevalence of incivility in nurses’ workplace. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were selected based on Condition, Context, Population (CoCoPop) (21). The review question was: What is the prevalence of incivility toward nurses working in health centers? To achieve the goals, the guideline “Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)” was used (22). Inclusion Criteria All observational studies (descriptive and analytical) focusing on investigation of the rate of prevalence of incivility toward nurses were selected, regardless of the sampling method they had used. Exclusion Criteria Letters to the editor, protocols, review studies, case series, case reports and studies with sample volumes less than 25 were excluded from the study. In addition, studies were excluded if they used researcher-made instruments to examine incivility, were repetitious, or involved non-reporting of incivility. There were no limitations in the language of the studies as we used free translators like ImTranslator, Bing, Google Translate, and Applied Languages to translate papers into other languages. Search Strategy In this study, the databases including Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 5 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IranDoc, and Magiran were searched for works published from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2019. Moreover, related studies, dissertations and conference papers were searched. The search strategy is given in the following Medline Script: ((Incivility[Title/Abstract] OR Uncivil Behavior*[Title/Abstract] OR Workplace Incivility [Title/Abstract] OR Rudeness [Title/Abstract] OR Bullying[Title/Abstract] OR abuse [Title/Abstract] OR lateral violence [Title/Abstract] OR horizontal violence [Title/Abstract] OR relational aggression [Title/Abstract] OR workplace violence [Title/Abstract] OR negative act* [Title/Abstract] OR negative behavior* [Title/Abstract] OR disruptive behavior* [Title/Abstract] OR horizontal hostility [Title/Abstract])) OR incivility [MeSH Terms])) AND (Nurs* [Title/Abstract] OR Personnel Nurs* [Title/Abstract] OR Registered Nurs* [Title/Abstract] OR caregiver* [Title/Abstract])) AND (prevalence [Title/Abstract] OR incidence [Title/Abstract] OR frequency [Title/Abstract] OR occurrence [Title/Abstract] OR burden [Title/Abstract] OR epidemiology [Title/Abstract])) Data Extraction Two independent researchers (SM, AB) completed the initial screening of the studies based on titles and abstracts. In the next stage, two researchers (SM, FA) studied the full texts of papers presumed to have reported consequences in more detail. Then, the relevant papers were outlined in a checklist. Only studies that examined the prevalence of non-civil behavior were included. Data such as study features including author(s), publication date and type of journal, setting of the study, goal(s), design and type of study, sample volume, sampling method, and characteristics of the participants such as age, gender, ward and work experience were extracted. In all of these stages, any disagreement or conflict between the two researchers was settled by consensus via bilateral debate or by a third party. Qualitative Assessment The selected studies were assessed qualitatively using Hoy’s Critical Assessment Checklist in 10 items. Items 1 - 4 assess external validity (target population, sampling framework, sampling method, and bias of lack of responding), items 5 - 9 assess internal validity (data collection method, case definition, and instruments), and item 10 evaluates analytical bias. Each question is given a score of "0" (Yes) or "1" (No), which indicate low risk and high risk, respectively. An overall score between 0 and 3 indicates low risk, a score between 4 and 6 indicates moderate risk, and a score between 7 and 9 indicates high risk (23). Result Description of the Studies At first, 6876 studies were identified across electronic databases. After removing duplicate studies and those not meeting the inclusion criteria, a total of 60 studies remained, which were covered in this Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 6 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e review. The numbers of the extracted studies categorized by database were as follows: PubMed: 1391; Web of Science: 225; Scopus: 3190; and EMBASE: 2070. After omitting 3451 repetitious studies, 3425 studies entered the screening phase and 3235 irrelevant studies were excluded. Next, 190 studies entered the full text reading stage, of which 130 studies were excluded due to differences in participants (70 cases) and study design (60 cases), so that finally, 60 studies entered the study (Figure 1). Fig. 1- The search flowchart for articles in databases based on the PRISMA 2009 checklist These studies had been conducted between 1997 and 2019 on 30801 participants. The characteristics of the selected works are presented in Table 1. The largest and smallest numbers of participants were 3835 and 80, respectively. Most studies pertained to Asian countries (n = 31) (24 - 54), followed by the United States (n = 15) (55- 69), Africa (n = 8) (71 - 78), Europe (n = 2) (79 - 80), and Eurasia (n = 4) (81 - 84). Among the Asian countries, Iran (n = 6) (25,26,33,36,41,54) and Taiwan (n = 5) (24, 27,29,35,50) had the greatest number of studies. It should be added that 30 studies had Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 7 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e been conducted in developed, and 30 in developing countries. 21 studies used random sampling (26,27,30-33,36,37,41,42,47,54- 56,58,59,60,63,70,71,73,74,79), eight used census sampling (35,53,65,66,72,76), and 23 used convenient sampling (24,28,29,34,39,44- 47,49,51,52,61,62,64,67,69,75,77,78,81-83). Eight studies did not announce which sampling method they had used (25,38,40,43,50,57,68,80). Forty studies used cross-sectional design (25-27,29,31- 40,42-47,49-51,53,57,61,62,66,68,70,70- 73,77,78,80-83), and twenty studies were descriptive (24,28,30,41,52,54-56,58-60,63- 65,67,69,74-76,79). The minimal rate of response was 3% and the maximal rate was 100%. Three studies did not report the response rate. Six studies were performed in the psychiatric ward, 6 in emergency care, and 2 in ICU. Most studies (n = 46) involved general hospitals and all wards. The most frequently used instruments were “Workplace Violence in the Health Sector” developed through the collaboration of the International Labor Organization (ILO), the WHO, the ICN, and the PSI in 2003 (27 cases), and “Negative Acts Questionnaire” (10 cases). Table 1- Studies dated 1997 - 2019 included in the systematic review (n = 60) ID Author Year Country S.size Objective Results Quality. A** 1 Sauer& McCoy 2016 U.S.A 2250 the impact of nurses’ resilience on the health- related consequences of bullying 40% had been bullied, and had lower physical and mental health. Low Risk 2 Heydari et al. 2015 Iran 200 the frequency of incivility between nurses and head nurses 28.8% had observed non-civil behaviors at least once. Low Risk 3 Budin et al. 2013 U.S.A 2007 the relationship between verbal abuse and demographic characteristics The level of verbal abuse from nurse colleagues was higher. Low Risk 4 Lu et al. 2019 China 2124 the prevalence of verbal and physical violence against nurses in psychiatric ward Verbal violence was 84.2% and physical violence was 57.9%. Low Risk 5 Tsukamoto et al. 2019 Brazil 242 the prevalence of and factors associated with occupational violence among members of the nursing team Prevalence of physical violence 20.2%; verbal abuse 59.1%; sexual harassment 12.8%. Low Risk 6 Jaradat et al. 2018 Palestine 372 workplace aggression and its association with psychological distress and reduced job satisfaction 27.1% reported exposure to workplace aggression of some sort. Low Risk 7 Cheung & Yip 2017 Hong Kong 16082 the socio-economic and psychological correlates of workplace violence 44.6% had experienced workplace violence Low Risk 8 Boafo et al. 2015 Ghana 1021 the incidence, sources and effects of workplace verbal abuse and sexual harassment 12% had experienced sexual harassment, 52.2% verbal abuse at least once. Low Risk 9 Alkorashy & Al Moalad 2016/Saudi 500 the prevalence rate of workplace violence against nursing professionals Half of the participants had experienced violence. Low Risk Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 8 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e ID Author Year Country S.size Objective Results Quality. A** Arabia 10 Fute et al. 2014 Ethiopia 660 and associated factors of workplace violence among nurses Workplace violence 29.9%, physical 18.22%, verbal 89.58%, sexual 13.02%. Low Risk 11 Baran Aksakal et al. 2011 Turkey 650 The frequency of and risk factors for physical violence, verbal violence and mobbing. Physical violence, verbal violence and mobbing were 13.9%, 41.8%, and 17.1%, respectively. Low Risk 12 Abou-ElWafa 2015 Egypt 286 the prevalence and associated risk factors for different types of violence against nurses 28.1% of emergency, and 46.9% of non-emergency ward nurses reported violence. Low Risk 13 Bambi et al. 2014 Italy 1504 the extent of lateral hostility and its effects on the quality of life 79.1% had experienced some form of lateral hostility. Low Risk 14 Galián-Muñoz et al. 2013 Spain 200 how exposure to this kind of violence affects the onset of burnout Extrinsic job satisfaction influences the relationship between nonphysical violence and emotional exhaustion. Low Risk 15 Lemelin et al. 2003 Canada 300 the prevalence, origins and forms of workplace violence 86.5% of the nurses had been victims of violent behavior. Low Risk 16 Manderino & Berkey 1997 U.S.A 300 the prevalence and consequences of verbal abuse 90% of the nurses in the sample reported abuse. Low Risk 17 Chen et al. 2012 Taiwan 1004 the prevalence, types and sources of violence 81.5% reported having suffered from workplace violence. Low Risk 18 Suhaila & Rampal 2012/ Malaysia 455 the prevalence of sexual harassment The prevalence of sexual harassment among these nurses was 51.2%. Low Risk 19 Khademloo et al. /2013/ Iran 440 the prevalence of verbal and physical abuse 29.1% had experienced physical, 95.9% verbal abuse. Low Risk 20 Fallahi Khoshknab et al. 2011/ Iran 200 the prevalence of violence in psychiatric wards The prevalence of violence was 71%. Low Risk 21 Berry et al. 2011 U.S.A 5000 the prevalence and effects of workplace bullying 72.6% of novice nurses had reported a workplace bullying Low Risk 22 Ahmed AS 2012 Jordan 500 the prevalence and sources of verbal and physical workplace abuse Verbal and physical abuse 37.1%, 18.3%, were respectively. Low Risk 23 Pai & Lee 2011 Taiwan 700 the risk factors and mental health consequences of physical and psychological violence The prevalence rates of physical violence, verbal, mobbing and sexual were 19.6%, 51.4%, 29.8% and 12.9%, respectively. Low Risk 24 AbuAlRub & AL- Asmar 2008 Jordan 496 the incidence of psychological violence, explore the reactions of nurses to this type of violence, and identify the factors 70% of the participants had been exposed to verbal abuse. Low Risk 25 Hsieh et al. 2016 Taiwan 550 the relationship between workplace bullying, mental health and an intention to Bullying was negatively correlated with self-efficacy and mental health. Low Risk Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 9 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e ID Author Year Country S.size Objective Results Quality. A** leave 26 Hampton et al. 2018 U.S.A 175 the exposure of nurse leaders in manager, director, or executive level roles to bullying 60% had experienced bullying, 26% severe workplace bullying. Low Risk 27 Zhao et al. 2015/ China 1013 the prevalence of workplace violence 67.2% had been exposed workplace violence. Low Risk 28 Noorana Zahra & Feng 2018/ Indonesia 245 the experiences of violent incidents 10% of the emergency nurses had experienced physical, 54.6% non-physical violence Low Risk 29 Zhang et al. 2014/ China 4123 the prevalence of workplace violence 25.77% reported experiencing physical violence, 63.65% non- physical, 2.76% sexual Low Risk 30 Karatza et al. 2013/ Greece 1000 the relationship between workplace bullying and general health status 30.2 % reported that they had been psychologically harassed. Low Risk 31 Jafree 2013-4/ Pakistan 804 the prevalence and patterns of workplace violence 73.1% reported experiencing some sort of violence. Low Risk 32 Ridenour et al. 2015/ U.S.A 284 the risk factors associated with patient aggression toward the nursing staff 60% reported verbal, and 19% physical aggression. Low Risk 33 Estes 2013/ U.S.A 1524 the influence of abusive supervision on nursing performance The incidence of abusive supervision was 46.6%. Low Risk 34 Esmaeilpour et al.2011/ Iran 196 the frequency and nature of physical and verbal workplace violence 19.7% of the nurses had faced physical violence. Low Risk 35 Fujishiro et al. 2011 Philippines 1000 workplace aggression was associated with self-rated health and work-related injury and illness Verbal abuse was associated with poor general health. Physical assault and verbal abuse with work-related injury. Low Risk 36 Abbas/ 2010 Egypt 1600 the prevalence and nature of workplace violence 27.7% reported abuse of some sort, 69.5% verbal abuse, and 9.3% physical Low Risk 37 Shiao et al. 2010/ Taiwan 1228 the incidence of assaults and their effects 28.1% had experienced physical and/or verbal Low Risk 38 Yildirim 2009/ Turkey the workplace and the bullying of nurses 21% of the nurses had been exposed to bullying. Low Risk 39 Joubert et al. 2005/ South Africa 120 whether private sector physicians verbally abuse nurses 79% of the nurses admitted that sort of verbal abuse Low Risk 40 Honarvar et al./2017 – 2018/ Iran 420 the various aspects of violence against nurses 89.6% of the nurses had been exposed to at least one kind of violence. Low Risk 41 Yun et al. 2012/ Korea 170 the relationship between perceived work environment and workplace bullying 94.0% of the ICU nurses had experienced at least one negative act Low Risk 42 Johnson & Rea/2009/ U.S.A 249 nurses’ experiences of and the characteristics related to workplace bullying 27.3% had experienced workplace bullying. Low Risk 43 Jiao et al. 2013/ China 700 the prevalence of workplace violence 7.8% experienced physical, 71.9% nonphysical Low Risk 44 Park et al. 1027 the prevalence and Verbal abuse was 63.8%, Low Risk Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 10 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e ID Author Year Country S.size Objective Results Quality. A** 2014 Korea perpetrators of workplace violence threats of violence 41.6%, physical 22.3%, and sexual 19.7%. 45 Niu et al. 2019 Taiwan 480 the prevalence of workplace violence physical and psychological violence were 55.7% and 82.1%, Low Risk 46 Obeidat et al. 2018 Amman 340 the prevalence of workplace bullying and its relationship with perceived competence 43% of the participants to be victims of severe workplace bullying. Low Risk 47 Pandey et al. 2018/ Nepal 200 The prevalence of workplace violence and its associated factors 64.5% of the nurses had experienced some sort of violence. Low Risk 48 Al-Shamlan 2015/ Saudi Arabia 450 the prevalence of verbal abuse 30.7% of the nurses experienced verbal abuse. Low Risk 49 Sisawo et al. 2014 Gambia 223 the prevalence and perpetrators of workplace violence and the factors associated with it verbal abuse, physical violence and sexual harassment were 59.8%, 17.2% and 10%, Low Risk 50 Chang & Chong 2012 2013 Korea 391 the prevalence of workplace violence Verbal abuse was 59.6%, threats of violence 36.9%, physical 27.6%, bullying 25.6%, sexual 22.4%. Low Risk 51 An & Kang 2014 Korea 380 the relationship between organizational culture and experience of workplace bullying The prevalence of workplace bullying was 15.8%. Low Risk 52 Tiruneh et al. 2015 Ethiopia 428 The prevalence of workplace violence and its associated factors among the study population. The prevalence of workplace violence was 26.7 %. Low Risk 53 Fafliora et al. 2014 Greece 120 the workplace violence encountered by nurses 76% of the nurses experienced workplace violence. Low Risk 54 Li et al. 2003 -2004 Hong Kong 1650 the prevalence and nature of workplace violence 76% had experienced abuse: verbal abuse 73%; bullying 45%; physical abuse 18%; and sexual harassment 12%. Low Risk 55 Rowe & Sherlock 2005 U.S.A 307 the types and frequency of verbal abuse against nurses Verbal abuse against nurses is quite costly to individual nurses, hospitals and patients. Low Risk 56 Campbell et al. 2011 U.S.A 4165 the prevalence of workplace violence and demographic, work-related, adult and childhood abuse histories as risk factors 30% had workplace violence (19.4% physical, 19.9% psychological). Low Risk 57 Hanrahan et al. 2010 U.S.A 688 the occurrence of adverse events The rate of verbal abuse toward registered nurses was 79%. Low Risk 58 May & Grubbs 2002 U.S.A 125 nurse perceptions of the incidence and nature of verbal and physical assault or abuse 100% reported verbal, and 82.1% physical assault. Low Risk 59 Dehghan- Chaloshtari & Ghodousi/2014 Iran 100 all forms of violence against nurses All nurses had experienced at least one type of violence Low Risk 60 Cook et al. 200 the incidence and impact of 91% had experienced some sort Low Risk Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 11 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e ID Author Year Country S.size Objective Results Quality. A** 2001 U.S.A physicians’ verbal abuse on perioperative nurses of verbal abuse * by ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI/2003 ** Quality Assessment: An overall score between 0 and 3 indicates low risk Risk of Bias and Publication Bias The qualitative assessment of the studies by Hoy et al.’s instrument showed a low rate of statistical bias in the studies (Table 1). As shown in Figures 2, and based on the Egger test, there was no publication bias in the studies. Figure 2 - Funnel plot of publication bias of studies of the prevalence of incivility Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 12 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e Table 2- Subgroup analysis of incivility prevalence according to characteristics of included studies Type of Incivility Subgroup Number of Studies Prevalence (95% CI) Heterogeneity % (P- Value) Verbal Country Classification Developed 14 15.70% 29.57, 58.81 98.99% (< 0.001) Developing 21 15.59% 49.26, 68.69 99.17% (< 0.001) Instrument WHO 25 75.57% 49.22, 65.87 98.93% (< 0.001) NAQ 1 76.45% 70.71, 81.35 0% (< 0.001) Verbal scale 1 24.96% 92.77, 98.08 0% (< 0.001) Other 8 17.74% 55.98, 88.86 99.24% (< 0.001) Setting General 25 62.69% 53.48, 71.45 99.15% (< 0.001) Emergency/Acute Care 4 74.29% 47.20, 93.97 98.18% (< 0.001) Psychiatric 6 60.25% 41.67, 77.43 99.12% (< 0.001) Sampling Method Random 18 66.22% 55.28, 76.35 99.28% (< 0.001) Convenience 10 60.99% 49.36, 72.02 98.09% (< 0.001) Not Reported 7 60.29% 38.19, 80.39 99.23% (< 0.001) Physical Country Classification Developed 14 25.54% 14, 39.13 99.29% (< 0.001) Developing 20 21.23% 15, 32.38 99.17% (< 0.001) Instrument WHO 24 20.15% 13.71, 27.46 99.06% (< 0.001) NAQ 1 72.31% 66.36, 77.57 0% (< 0.001) Verbal scale - - - - Other 9 30.58% 16.28, 47.11 99.21% (< 0.001) Setting General 24 20.18% 14.36, 26.69 98.89% (< 0.001) Emergency/Acute Care 5 19% 8.78, 31.91 94.91% (< 0.001) Psychiatric 5 51.42% 24.91, 77.51 99.54% (< 0.001) Sampling Method Random 20 24.54% 15.52, 34.85 99.44% (< 0.001) Convenience 9 24.12% 11.01, 40.32 99.03% (< 0.001) Not Reported 5 22.75% 7.73,42.68 98.83% (< 0.001) Sexual Country Classification Developed 9 20.67% 9.26, 35.12 98.91% (< 0.001) Developing 13 9.57% 5.41, 14.74 97.42% (< 0.001) Instrument WHO 17 10.25% 6.11, 15.28 97.97% (< 0.001) NAQ - - - - Verbal scale - - - - Other 5 28.04% 13.28, 45.73 97.99% (0.00) Setting General 16 13.18% 7.53,20.10 98.71% (0.00) Emergency/Acute Care 4 14.09% 2.71, 31.93 96.85% (0.00) Psychiatric 2 22.61% 19.37, 26.02 0% (0.00) Sampling Method Random 14 13.48% 8.23, 19.77 98.02% (0.00) Convenience 6 11.63% 0.89, 31.42 98.02% (0.00) Not Reported 1 24.63% 21.43, 27.97 0% (0.00) Mobbing No Subgroup 10 35.69% 21.23, 51.60 98.77% (0.00) Psychological No Subgroup 7 54.27% 30.65,76.92 99.58% (0.00) Table 3- Subgroup analysis of incivility prevalence according to type of incivility Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 13 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e Type of Incivility Subgroup Number of Studies Prevalence (95% CI) Heterogeneity % (P- Value) Verbal Country Classification Developed 14 15.70% 29.57, 58.81 98.99% (< 0.001) Developing 21 15.59% 49.26, 68.69 99.17% (< 0.001) Instrument WHO 25 75.57% 49.22, 65.87 98.93% (< 0.001) NAQ 1 76.45% 70.71, 81.35 0% (< 0.001) Verbal scale 1 24.96% 92.77, 98.08 0% (< 0.001) Other 8 17.74% 55.98, 88.86 99.24% (< 0.001) Setting General 25 62.69% 53.48, 71.45 99.15% (< 0.001) Emergency/Acute Care 4 74.29% 47.20, 93.97 98.18% (< 0.001) Psychiatric 6 60.25% 41.67, 77.43 99.12% (< 0.001) Sampling Method Random 18 66.22% 55.28, 76.35 99.28% (< 0.001) Convenience 10 60.99% 49.36, 72.02 98.09% (< 0.001) Not Reported 7 60.29% 38.19, 80.39 99.23% (< 0.001) Physical Country Classification Developed 14 25.54% 14, 39.13 99.29% (< 0.001) Developing 20 21.23% 15, 32.38 99.17% (< 0.001) Instrument WHO 24 20.15% 13.71, 27.46 99.06% (< 0.001) NAQ 1 72.31% 66.36, 77.57 0% (< 0.001) Verbal scale - - - - Other 9 30.58% 16.28, 47.11 99.21% (< 0.001) Setting General 24 20.18% 14.36, 26.69 98.89% (< 0.001) Emergency/Acute Care 5 19% 8.78, 31.91 94.91% (< 0.001) Psychiatric 5 51.42% 24.91, 77.51 99.54% (< 0.001) Sampling Method Random 20 24.54% 15.52, 34.85 99.44% (< 0.001) Convenience 9 24.12% 11.01, 40.32 99.03% (< 0.001) Not Reported 5 22.75% 7.73,42.68 98.83% (< 0.001) Sexual Country Classification Developed 9 20.67% 9.26, 35.12 98.91% (< 0.001) Developing 13 9.57% 5.41, 14.74 97.42% (< 0.001) Instrument WHO 17 10.25% 6.11, 15.28 97.97% (< 0.001) NAQ - - - - Verbal scale - - - - Other 5 28.04% 13.28, 45.73 97.99% (0.00) Setting General 16 13.18% 7.53,20.10 98.71% (0.00) Emergency/Acute Care 4 14.09% 2.71, 31.93 96.85% (0.00) Psychiatric 2 22.61% 19.37, 26.02 0% (0.00) Sampling Method Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 14 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e Type of Incivility Subgroup Number of Studies Prevalence (95% CI) Heterogeneity % (P- Value) Random 14 13.48% 8.23, 19.77 98.02% (0.00) Convenience 6 11.63% 0.89, 31.42 98.02% (0.00) Not Reported 1 24.63% 21.43, 27.97 0% (0.00) Mobbing No Subgroup 10 35.69% 21.23, 51.60 98.77% (0.00) Psychological No Subgroup 7 54.27% 30.65,76.92 99.58% (0.00) CI: Confidence Interval Results Based on the results displayed in Table 3, there was high heterogeneity in the studies, and therefore the random effects model with reverse variance was used. Thus, the total prevalence of incivility was 55.10% (95% CI: 48.5, 62.06), and the prevalence rates of verbal, physical and sexual incivility and mobbing behavior were 61.63% (95% CI: 56, 95, 70), 15.24% (95% CI: 33.17, 70.31), 67.13% (95% CI: 52.8, 77.19), and 69.35% (95% CI: 23.21, 60.51), respectively (Figures 3). Fig. 3- Forest plot based on the population studied for the prevalence of incivility in the range of 95% confidence interval The results of heterogeneity of the studies are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Since there Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 15 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e was an expressive heterogeneity in the studies, the subgroups were analyzed according to country classification, instrument, setting and sampling methods. The results demonstrated that the greatest and smallest prevalence rates of incivility pertained to verbal and sexual aspects, respectively. The prevalence of incivility was higher in studies that used random sampling, in psychiatric wards, and in developing countries. The meta-regression test indicated a correlation between publication date and the prevalence of incivility, in that the latter decreased over the recent decades (Figure 4). Fig. 4- Forest plot based on the population studied for the prevalence of physical incivility in the range of 95% confidence interval Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the prevalence of incivility and violence toward nurses by examining 60 studies. The findings of the study showed a higher-than-average rate of incivility toward nurses. The highest rate pertained to violence and verbal abuse, experienced by almost all nurses, and the lowest rate pertained to sexual violence. Moreover, the prevalence of incivility in the form of mental abuse was greater than physical violence and threat. The study by Li et al. suggested that although the rate of violence against physicians and nurses is high, the rate of incivility toward nurses is higher than physicians (84). Taylor and Rew asserted that more than 80% of nurses consider their Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 16 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e workplace unsafe and believe the prevalence of verbal and physical threat to be high (85). The study by Pompeii et al. revealed that the greatest rate of incivility pertained to violence and verbal threat (86). It appears that poor communication skills, devoting insufficient time to one’s duties, and delay in sharing information may foster the incidence of verbal incivility. The search process showed that there were more studies targeting nurses compared to other health professionals. Even the number of studies on nursing students was greater than the studies on other groups of students. The studies showed a higher prevalence of incivility toward nurses than other healthcare staff. It seems that the more time the staff spend with patients and other individuals, the greater will the rate of incivility be (87). The behavioral patterns of managers and supervisors can also affect both employees and those who monitor their actions and help to spread the prevalence of uncivil behavior. Other possible reasons may be job insecurity or high workload along with low autonomy, which exposes a person to non-civil behavior (88). Meta-regression based on publication date indicated that the rate of incivility and violence has decreased over time. One of the reasons that the prevalence of violence has diminished in recent years may be nurses’ increased awareness of the rules and regulations in the profession, and legal mitigation and pursuit. Awareness of rules and laws enables nurses to defend their own rights and therefore reduce incivility. Nonetheless, the rate of prevalence of verbal violence has not decreased tangibly. One reason for conducting research on the subject is raising the awareness of nurses and managers in this regard. Managers’ and policymakers’ awareness about their importance as role models in reinforcing polite behavior can also be effective in reducing the prevalence of non-civil behavior. Jenkins et al. found that training in the subject of incivility and its importance and consequences, as well as teaching stress management and coping strategies can help reduce the prevalence of incivility (89). Our findings showed that most primary studies had been carried out in general hospitals on nurses in various wards, but the prevalence of incivility and violence was greater in psychiatric wards. Furthermore, the incidence of physical incivility was greater in these wards compared to other types of non-civil behavior. Verbal incivility occurred more frequently than other behaviors in the ER and ICU because ER patients experience critical situations, and it is highly important to settle their anxiety as quickly and efficiently as possible. The nature and sensitivity of the ER is such that any shortcoming in organizational and manpower factors can lead to disastrous consequences. Chaotic situations, unpredictable conditions, stressful atmospheres, and limitations in therapeutic processes for evaluating the effect of interventions and care may expose the ER staff to verbal incivility. Some studies report that nurses in the ER, mental health inpatient units, and pediatric, neurology and neurosurgery departments are subject to violence more frequently. This may well deter young nurses from working in such environments (90). It seems that the critical condition of patients admitted to these Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 17 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e wards, as well as the stress and anxiety of their companions, causes verbal abuse and increases the incidence of incivility in these wards. While our findings suggested a great prevalence of incivility in developing countries, the prevalence of verbal, physical and sexual incivility was higher in developed countries. Decreased reports of sexual violence in some countries may be attributed to cultural reasons. The variety and great number of studies in different countries show that incivility and violence toward healthcare providers and caregivers are quite common in most clinical environments. Our findings demonstrated that Asian countries, especially Iran and Taiwan, had the greatest number of studies in this field. This can be due to the high prevalence of non-civil behavior in these countries, which may be attributed to personal factors as well as heavy workload, shortage of manpower, poor team-work skills, or lack of programs to manage healthcare violence (85). In studies on sexual harassment, publication bias can occur as a result of socio-cultural factors. Physical and psychological problems, decreased motivation and commitment to the workplace, and work leave are among the consequences of sexual harassment. Organizational factors such as social support and workplace reporting systems, as well as people’s vulnerability in terms of race, marital status, age, etc. can affect the reporting of this event. Studies have shown the importance of an organization’s atmosphere, its sensitivity to the issue, and its support in reducing sexual harassment and encouraging the reporting of its incidence (91). Incivility not only creates a hostile workplace for nurses, but also forms a dangerous environment for patients, leading to diminished patient satisfaction (7). Clark and Springer concluded that inappropriate behaviors might result in medical and nursing errors and poor patient outcomes (9). On the other hand, legal mitigation by victims in hostile environments may impose some costs on hospitals. Additionally, work leave, nurse transfer and hostile environments can affect employment in the organization, and the nurse victims may seek legal consultation, possibly affecting the financial affairs, reputation and credibility of the center (7). Consequently, incivility is associated with overwhelming healthcare costs, compensatory payments related to tension among the staff, increased numbers of legal lawsuits, and poor-quality care (91). The results of studies demonstrate that incivility is the most important factor that negatively affects occupational satisfaction among nurses (90), resulting in lack of commitment and more frequent work leaves, finally influencing quality of care, costs and organizational reputation both directly and indirectly. Members of the staff that experience incivility in the workplace deliberately reduce the quality of their work, which will lead to diminished efficacy (92,93). However, parameters such as social and organizational support, transparent rules, enhanced communication skills, increased Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 18 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e level of abilities and empowerment of nurses can attenuate the rate of incivility (85). In many cases, nurses cannot pursue issues related to incivility due to absence of centers and committees for recording and managing violence, or due to individuals’ request for non- pursuit of the problem. Finally, studies report that many nurses stated there was no particular place within the organization to report incivility and they were puzzled who to turn to in such conditions. Therefore, many incivility cases remain unreported. Also, junior nurses experience higher rates of incivility but cannot take appropriate action due to poorer communication skills and lack of support from their coworkers and the organization. Hence, the incidence of such behaviors is seldom substantiated in the organizational culture. Limitations of the Study One limitation was inaccessibility of the full texts of some of the papers, which was resolved through communication with the author(s). In addition, the diverse terms used to assess the extent of non-civil behavior have made the studies heterogeneous in this area. Lastly, the nurses' perceptions of the concept of non-civil behavior were very different. Conclusion The findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of incivility toward nurses was higher than the average rate. Given the wide range of studies in terms of time, setting and environment, it appears that planners and policy-makers need to develop programs to decrease violence and increase workplace safety. Healthcare managers and supervisors should be aware that disruptive and threatening behaviors are a serious problem in the healthcare system. For instance, verbal abuse, refusal to help the staff perform their specified duties and physical threats induce failure of teamwork and harm the interaction and cooperation required for care provision. Nurses play a highly significant role in caregiving, and therefore deserve to have a safe work environment. Consequently, nursing managers ought to identify the risk factors in the workplace and pay due attention to nurses’ concerns in this regard. In view of the high prevalence of non-verbal incivility in recent years, nursing managers should identify the risk factors in the workplace, especially in critical wards. In addition, creating a responsive and supportive organizational environment can help prevent or reduce incivility and even encourage staff to report such behaviors. Managers and policy makers should also support nurses and plan for their empowerment and education to deal with non-civil behavior and report violence. Finally, future studies should focus on identification and implementation of effective evidence-based interventions in keeping with the respective organizational culture. Conflict of Interests There is no conflict of interests to declare. All authors worked in close collaboration and were responsible for critical revision of the manuscript. Competing Interests Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 19 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e The authors have no competing interests to declare. Ethics Approval Consent to participate was not applicable in this study. The research was approved by the Organizational Ethics Committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (No. IR.SBMU.REC.1398.143). Funding Statement This research received no grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Mahmoud Yousefifard and Georgina Riley for their diligent and thoughtful editing of the manuscript. Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 20 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e References 1. Gopalkrishnan P. Workplace incivility and employee strain in reactions: The moderating effects of perceived organisational support and job insecurity. [cited on Aug 2021]; https://www.google.com/search?q=Workplace+incivility+and+employee+strain+in+reaction s%3A+The+moderating+effects+of+perceived+organisational+support+and+job+insecurity &oq=Workplace+incivility+and+employee+strain+in+reactions%3A+The+moderating+effe cts+of+perceived+organisational+support+and+job+insecurity&aqs=chrome..69i57.1015j0j 15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 2. Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Hjelt‐ Back M. Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior. 1994; 20(3): 173-84. 3. Duncan S, Estabrooks CA, Reimer M. Violence against nurses. Alta RN. 2000; 56(2): 13-4. 4. Andersson L.M, Pearson C.M. Tit for tat? the spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review. 1999; 24(3): 452-71. 5. Hosseinpour Dalenjan L, Atashzadeh Shoorideh F, Hosseini M, Mohtashami J. The correlation between nurses’ work engagement and workplace incivility. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2017; 19(4): 26. 6. Hershcovis MS, Barling J. Towards a relational model of workplace aggression. In Langan- Fox J, Cooper CL, Klimoski RJ, Eds. Research Companion to The Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2008. 7. Lim S, Cortina LM, Magley VJ. Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008; 93(1): 95-107. 8. Hoffman RL, Chunta K. Workplace incivility: promoting zero tolerance in nursing. Journal of Radiology Nursing. 2015; 34(4): 222-7. 9. Clark CM, Springer PJ. Academic nurse leaders’ role in fostering a culture of civility in nursing education. J Nurs Educ. 2010; 49(6): 319-25. 10. Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. Impact and implications of disruptive behavior in the perioperative arena. J Am Coll Surg. 2006; 203(1): 96–105. 11. Estes B, Wang J. Workplace incivility: impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review. 2008; 7(2): 218-40. 12. Montalvo L. An evidence based synthesis of civility and incivility literature: a model to explain civil and uncivil behaviors in the workplace. [cited on Aug 2021]; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2327834 13. Arab N, Hashemi Sheykhshabani E, Beshlideh K. Antecedents of workplace incivility: investigating some personal and organizational variables. Journal of Psychology. 2013; 17(3): 294-309. 14. Azami M, Moslemirad M, YektaKooshali M.H, et al. Workplace violence against Iranian nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Violence Vict. 2018; 33(6): 1148-75. 15. Dalvand S, Gheshlagh RG, Najafi F, Zahednezhad H, Sayehmiri K. The prevalence of workplace violence against iranian nurses: a systematic review and met-analysis. Shiraz E Medical Journal. 2018; 19: 9. 16. D'ambra AM, Andrews DR. Incivility, retention and new graduate nurses: an integrated review of the literature. J Nurs Manag. 2014; 22(6): 735-42. Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 21 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e 17. Edward Kl, Ousey K, Warelow P, Lui S. Nursing and aggression in the workplace: a systematic review. Br J Nurs. 2014; 23(12): 653-9. 18. Hawkins N, Jeong S, Smith T. New graduate registered nurses’ exposure to negative workplace behavior in the acute care setting: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019; 93: 41-5. 19. Zhu Z, Xing W, Lizarondo L, Gue M, Hu Y. Nursing students’ experiences with faculty incivility in the clinical education context: a qualitative systematic review and meta- synthesis. BMJ Open. 2019; 9: e024383. 20. Hodgins M, MacCurtain S, Mannix-McNamara P. Workplace bullying and incivility: a systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2014; 7(1): 54-72. 21. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):147–53. 22. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283(15); 2008-12. 23. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(9): 934- 9. 24. Chen KP, Ku YC, Yang HF. Violence in the nursing workplace–a descriptive correlational study in a public hospital. J Clin Nurs. 2013; 22(5-6):798-805. 25. Khademloo M, Moonesi FS, Gholizade H. Health care violence and abuse toward nurses in hospitals in north of Iran. Global Journal of Health Science. 2013; 5(4): 211-6. 26. Fallahi Khoshknab M, Tamizi Z, Ghazanfari N, Mehrabani G. Prevalence of workplace violence in psychiatric wards, Tehran, Iran. Pak J Biol Sci. 2012; 15(14): 680-4. 27. Pai HC, Lee S. Risk factors for workplace violence in clinical registered nurses in Taiwan. J Clin Nurs. 2011; 20(9‐ 10): 1405-12. 28. Abualrub RF, Al-Asmar AH. Psychological violence in the workplace among Jordanian hospital nurses. J Transcult Nurs. 2014; 22(2): 157-65. 29. Hsieh YH, Wang HH, Ma SC. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between workplace bullying, mental health and an intention to leave among nurses in Taiwan. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2019; 32(2): 245-54. 30. Zhao S, Xie F, Wang J, et al. Prevalence of workplace violence against Chinese nurses and its association with mental health: a cross-sectional survey. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2018; 32(2): 242-7. 31. Zhang L, Wang A, Xie X, et al. Workplace violence against nurses: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017; 72: 8-14. 32. Jafree SR. Workplace violence against women nurses working in two public sector hospitals of Lahore, Pakistan. Nurs Outlook. 2017; 65(4): 420-7. Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 22 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e 33. Esmaeilpour M, Salsali M, Ahmadi F. Workplace violence against Iranian nurses working in emergency departments. Int Nurs Rev. 2011; 58(1): 130-7. 34. Fujishiro K, Gee GC, de Castro AB. Associations of workplace aggression with work-related well-being among nurses in the Philippines. Am J Public Health. 2011; 101(5): 861-7. 35. Shiao JSC, Tseng Y, Hsieh YT, Hou JY, Cheng Y, Guo YL. Assaults against nurses of general and psychiatric hospitals in Taiwan. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010; 83(7): 823-32. 36. Honarvar B, Ghazanfari N, Shahraki HR, Rostami S, Lankarani KB. Violence against nurses: a Neglected and health threatening epidemic in the university affiliated public hospitals in Shiraz, Iran. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2019; 10(3): 111-23. 37. Jiao M, Ning N, Li Y, et al. Workplace violence against nurses in Chinese hospitals: a cross- sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(3): e006719. 38. Park M, Cho SH, Hong HJ. Prevalence and perpetrators of workplace violence by nursing unit and the relationship between violence and the perceived work environment. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015; 47(1):87-95. 39. Obeidat RF, Qan’ir Y, Turaani H. The relationship between perceived competence and perceived workplace bullying among registered nurses: a cross sectional survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018; 88: 71-8. 40. Al-Shamlan NA, Jayaseeli N, Al-Shawi MM, Al-Joudi AS. Are nurses verbally abused? a cross-sectional study of nurses at a university hospital, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2017; 24(3): 173-80. 41. Heydari A, Rad M. Evaluating the incivility between staff nurses and matrons employed in Iran. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis. 2015; 32(2):137-46. 42. Lu L, Lok KI, Zhang L, et al. Prevalence of verbal and physical workplace violence against nurses in psychiatric hospitals in China. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2019; 33(5): 68-72. 43. Jaradat Y, Nielsen MB, Kristensen P, et al. Workplace aggression, psychological distress, and job satisfaction among Palestinian nurses: a cross-sectional study. Appl Nurs Res. 2016; 32: 190-8. 44. Cheung T, Yip PS. Workplace violence toward nurses in Hong Kong: prevalence and correlates. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1): 196. 45. Alkorashy HAE, Al Moalad FB. Workplace violence against nursing staff in a Saudi university hospital. Int Nurs Rev. 2016; 63(2): 226-32. 46. Suhaila O, Rampal KG. Prevalence of sexual harassment and its associated factors among registered nurses working in government hospitals in Melaka State, Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 2012; 67(5): 506-17. 47. Ahmed AS. Verbal and physical abuse against Jordanian nurses in the work environment. East Mediterr Health J. 2012; 18(4), 318-24. 48. Zahra AN, Feng JY. Workplace violence against nurses in Indonesian emergency departments. Enfermeria clinica. 2018; 28: 184-90. 49. Yun S, Kang J, Lee YO, Yi Y. Work environment and workplace bullying among Korean intensive care unit nurses. Asian Nursing Research. 2014; 8(3): 219-25. Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 23 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e 50. Niu SF, Kuo SF, Tsai HT, Kao CC, Traynor V, Chou KR. Prevalence of workplace violent episodes experienced by nurses in acute psychiatric settings. PLoS ONE. 2109; 14(1): e0211183. 51. Chang HE, Cho SH. Workplace violence and job outcomes of newly licensed nurses. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2016; 10(4): 271-6. 52. An Y, Kang J. Relationship between organizational culture and workplace bullying among Korean nurses. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2016; 10(3): 234-9. 53. Kwok RPW, Law YK, Li KE, et al. Prevalence of workplace violence against nurses in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2006; 12(1): 6-9. 54. Dehghan-Chaloshtari S, Ghodousi A. Factors and characteristics of workplace violence against nurses: a study in Iran. J Interpers Violence. 2020; 35(1-2): 496-509. 55. Sauer PA, McCoy TP. Nurse bullying: Impact on nurses’ health. West J Nurs Res. 2017; 39(12): 1533-46. 56. Budin WC, Brewer CS, Chao YY, Kovner C. Verbal abuse from nurse colleagues and work environment of early career registered nurses. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2013; 45(3): 308-16. 57. Tsukamoto SAS, Galdino MJQ, Robazzi MLCC, et al. Occupational violence in the nursing team: prevalence and associated factors. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2019; 32(4): 425-32. 58. Lemelin L, Bonin JP, Duquette A. Workplace violence reported by Canadian nurses. Can J Nurs Res. 2009: 41(3): 152-67. 59. Manderino MA, Berkey N. Verbal abuse of staff nurses by physicians. J Prof Nurs. 1997; 13(1): 48-55. 60. Berry PA, Gillespie GL, Gates D, Schafer J. Novice nurse productivity following workplace bullying. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2012; 44(1): 80-7. 61. Hampton D, Tharp‐ Barrie K, Rayens MK. Experience of nursing leaders with workplace bullying and how to best cope. J Nurs Manag. 2019; 27(3):517-26. 62. Ridenour M, Lanza M, Hendricks S, et al. Incidence and risk factors of workplace violence on psychiatric staff. Work. 2015; 51(1): 19-28. 63. Estes BC. Abusive supervision and nursing performance. Nurs Forum. 2013; 48 (1): 3-16. 64. Johnson SL, Rea RE. Workplace bullying: concerns for nurse leaders. J Nurs Adm. 2009; 39(2): 84-90. 65. Rowe MM, Sherlock H. Stress and verbal abuse in nursing: do burned out nurses eat their young? J Nurs Manag. 2005; 13(3): 242-8. 66. Campbell JC, Messing JT, Kub J, et al. Workplace violence: prevalence and risk factors in the safe at work study. J Occup Environ Med. 2011; 53(1): 82-9. 67. May DD, Grubbs LM. The extent, nature, and precipitating factors of nurse assault among three groups of registered nurses in a regional medical center. J Emerg Nurs. 2002; 28(1): 11-7. 68. Hanrahan NP, Kumar A, Aiken LH. Adverse events associated with organizational factors of general hospital inpatient psychiatric care environments. Psychiatr Serv. 2010; 61(6): 569- 74. Incivility toward nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis 24 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e 69. Cook JK, Green M, Topp RV. Exploring the impact of physician verbal abuse on perioperative nurses. AORN J. 2001; 74(3): 317-31. 70. Boafo IM, Hancock P, Gringart E. Sources, incidence and effects of non‐ physical workplace violence against nurses in Ghana. Nurs Open. 2016; 3(2): 99-109. 71. Fute M, Mengesha ZB, Wakgari N, Tessema GA. High prevalence of workplace violence among nurses working at public health facilities in Southern Ethiopia. BMC Nurs. 2015; 14: 9. 72. Abou-ElWafa HS, El-Gilany AH, Abd-El-Raouf SE, Abd-Elmouty SM, El-Sayed RESH. Workplace violence against emergency versus non-emergency nurses in Mansoura university hospitals, Egypt. J Interpers Violence. 2015; 30(5): 857-72. 73. Abbas MA, Fiala LA, Abdel Rahman AG, Fahim AE. Epidemiology of workplace violence against nursing staff in Ismailia Governorate, Egypt. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2010; 85(1-2): 29-43. 74. Pandey M, Bhandari TR, Dangal G. Workplace violence and its associated factors among nurses. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2017; 15(3): 235-41. 75. Sisawo EJ, Ouedraogo SYY, Huang SL. Workplace violence against nurses in the Gambia: mixed methods design. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17(1): 311. 76. Tiruneh BT, Bifftu BB, Tumebo AA, Kelkay MM, Anlay DZ, Dachew BA. Prevalence of workplace violence in Northwest Ethiopia: a multivariate analysis. BMC Nurs. 2016; 15: 42. 77. Joubert E, du Rand A, van Wyk N. Verbal abuse of nurses by physicians in a private sector setting. Curationis. 2005; 28(3): 39-46. 78. Bambi S, Becattini G, Giusti GD, Mezzetti A, Guazzini A, Lumini E. Lateral hostilities among nurses employed in intensive care units, emergency departments, operating rooms, and emergency medical services: a national survey in Italy. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2014; 33(6): 347-54. 79. Galian-Munoz I, Ruiz-Hernandez JA, Llor-Esteban B, Lopez-Garcia C. User violence and nursing staff burnout: the modulating role of job satisfaction. J Interpers Violence. 2016; 31(2): 302-15. 80. Aksakal FNB, Karasahin EF, Dikmen AU, Avci E, Ozkan S. Workplace physical violence, verbal violence, and mobbing experienced by nurses at a university hospital. Turk J Med Sci. 2015; 45(6):1360-8. 81. Karatza C, Zyga S, Tziaferi S, Prezerakos P. Workplace bullying and general health status among the nursing staff of Greek public hospitals. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2016; 15(1): 7. 82. Yıldırım D. Bullying among nurses and its effects. Int Nurs Rev. 2009; 56(4): 504-11. 83. Fafliora E, Bampalis VG, Zarlas G, Sturaitis P, Lianas D, Mantzouranis G. Workplace violence against nurses in three different Greek healthcare settings. Work. 2016; 53(3): 551- 60. 84. Li P, Xing K, Qiao H, et al. Psychological violence against general practitioners and nurses in Chinese township hospitals: incidence and implications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018; 16(1): 117. 85. Taylor JL, Rew L. A systematic review of the literature: workplace violence in the emergency department. J Clin Nurs. 2011; 20(7‐ 8): 1072-85. Atashzadeh Shoorideh F., et al. 25 J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021(November); 14: 15. Jo u rn a l o f M e d ica l E th ics a n d H isto ry o f M e d icin e 86. Pompeii LA, Schoenfisch AL, Lipscomb HJ, Dement JM, Smith CD, Upadhyaya M. Physical assault, physical threat, and verbal abuse perpetrated against hospital workers by patients or visitors in six US hospitals. Am J Ind Med. 2015; 58(11): 1194-204. 87. Phillips J.P. Workplace violence against health care workers in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(17): 1661-9. 88. Elmblad R. Workplace incivility affecting CRNAs: a study of prevalence, severity, consequences with proposed interventions. AANA J. 2014; 82(6): 437-45. 89. Jenkins SD, Kerber CS, Woith WM. An intervention to promote civility among nursing students. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2013; 34(2): 95-100. 90. Martinez AJS. Managing workplace violence with evidence-based interventions: a literature review. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2016; 54(9): 31-6. 91. Bergman ME, Henning JB. Sex and ethnicity as moderators in the sexual harassment phenomenon: a revision and test of Fitzgerald et al (1994). J Occup Health Psychol. 2008; 13(2): 152-67. 92. EL Banan SHA, Abdrbo AA. The Relationship between Workplace Incivility and Work Engagement as Perceived by Staff Nurses at a Selected Hospital. International Journal of Nursing and Health Science. 2020; 6(1): 1-9. 93. Spence Laschinger H.K, Finegan J, Wilk P. New graduate burnout: the impact of professional practice environment, workplace civility and empowerment. Nurs Econ. 2009; 27(6): 377-83.