METHODS: A systematic review was carried out using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The included sites and databases are Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) from 1994 to 2019. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using a standard quality rating tool (SQRT). The quality of the criteria for inclusion and exclusion was independently reviewed by three researchers.
RESULTS: This study evaluated 5266 records in the identification stage. In the included stage, only four studies were included in this review. In the standard quality assessment, none of the included studies were evaluated as being a strong study, none used an experimental design at three points in time (pre, post and follow-up), and all showed a moderate to high risk of bias. There is a lack of knowledge and skills related to trauma triage among emergency nurses in the included studies.
CONCLUSION: A lack of knowledge and skills concerning trauma triage among emergency nurses could potentially have an adverse effect on the outcomes of the patients in trauma cases.
METHOD: A validated questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha 0.71) was used to collect data from HCPs in two CCHF endemic metropolitan cities of Pakistan by employing a cross-sectional study design. For data analysis percentages, chi-square test and Spearman correlation were applied by using SPSS version 22.
RESULTS: Of the 478 participants, 56% (n = 268) were physicians, 37.4% (n = 179) were nurses, and 6.5% (n = 31) were pharmacists. The proportion of HCPs with good knowledge, attitude, and perception scores was 54.3%, 81, and 69%, respectively. Being a physician, having more work experience, having a higher age, working in tertiary care settings, were key factors for higher knowledge (p
METHODS: In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.
RESULTS: Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2-31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5-31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3-67.5%) among the hospitals' Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P
DESIGN: A double-blind, cluster-randomized approach was used as a randomization method for this study to evaluate the stress management interventional program.
METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was carried out in eight comprehensive healthcare centres in Amman city, Jordan; four centres were randomly assigned to each experimental and control group. One hundred and seventy nurses were selected randomly from March 2019 - August 2019 and data were collected by using the Nursing Stress Scale & brief COPE over three data collection times. Both descriptive and inferential statistics (repeated measure ANOVA, Independent t test, and chi-squared) were used to answer the research questions of this study.
RESULTS: The results showed that both the levels of occupational stress and coping strategies were significantly different between the two study groups over the three data collection points (p
METHOD: A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger's test at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%).
CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional online study using a validated questionnaire was distributed to doctors (MD), assistant medical officers (AMO), and staff nurses (SN) at an urban tertiary Emergency Department. It comprised of 40 knowledge and 10 confidence-level questions related to resuscitation and airway management steps.
RESULTS: A total of 135 from 167 eligible EHCW were enrolled. 68.9% (n = 93) had high knowledge while 53.3% (n = 72) possessed high confidence level. Overall knowledge mean score was 32.96/40 (SD = 3.63) between MD (33.88±3.09), AMO (32.28±4.03), and SN (32.00±3.60), P= 0.025. EHCWs with a length of service (LOS) between 4-10 years had the highest knowledge compared to those with LOS <4-year (33.71±3.39 versus 31.21±3.19 P = 0.002). Airway-related knowledge was significantly different between the designations and LOS (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). Overall, EHCW confidence level against LOS showed significant difference [F (2, 132) = 5.46, P = 0.005] with longer LOS showing better confidence. MD showed the highest confidence compared to AMO and SN (3.67±0.69, 3.53±0.68, 3.26±0.64) P = 0.049. The majority EHCW were confident in performing high-quality chest-compression, and handling of Personal Protective Equipment but less than half were confident in resuscitating, leading the resuscitation, managing the airway or being successful in first intubation attempt.
CONCLUSIONS: EHCW possessed good knowledge in airway and resuscitation of COVID-19 patients, but differed between designations and LOS. A longer LOS was associated with better confidence, but there were some aspects in airway management and resuscitation that needed improvement.
BACKGROUND: Previous literature showed that mindfulness-based training is useful for helping nurses cope with stress.
METHOD: Nurses who have mild to moderate levels of stress, anxiety and depression identified from a teaching hospital were invited to a randomized control trial. The intervention group had a 2-hr Mindfulness-Based Training workshop, followed by 4 weeks of guided self-practice Mindfulness-Based Training website. Both the intervention group (n = 118) and the control group (n = 106) were evaluated pre- and post-intervention, and 8 weeks later (follow-up) using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21, Job Satisfaction Scale and Mindful Attention Awareness Scale.
RESULTS: There was a significant effect over time on stress, anxiety, depression and mindfulness level (p
BACKGROUND: Nursing professionals are placed continuously at the forefront in the area of health care which makes them highly exposed to professional stress.
EVALUATION: Randomized controlled trial studies (RCTs) were systematically searched in eight different databases for works published in English from 2011 to 2019; inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers critically and assessed the risk of bias using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).
KEY ISSUES: The systematic search contributed to the extraction of approximately 10 most relevant RCTs. Most of the RCTs considered in this systematic review revealed that the stress reduction interventions and strategies were effective in reducing the levels of occupational stress experienced by nurses.
CONCLUSIONS: Current review shows that stress management interventional programme tends to be effective, but additional well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm their effectiveness.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Implementing stress management interventions within health care organisations are likely to assist nurses in reducing occupational stress and in improving coping strategies used by nurses for dealing with stress.