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: Because of the demanding nature of their work, nurses often have significantly high levels of stress, anxiety and depression. MBSR has been reported to be an effective intervention to decrease psychological distress.
DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: The databases included were Science Direct, PubMed, EBSCO host, Springer Link and Web of Science from 2002 to 2018. Interventional studies published in English that used MBSR among nurses to reduce their psychological distress were retrieved for review. The PRISMA guideline was used in this systematic review. The included studies were assessed for quality using "The Quality Assessment Tool For Quantitative Studies (QATFQS)."
RESULTS: Nine studies were found to be eligible and included in this review. Many benefits, including reduced stress, anxiety, depression, burnout and better job satisfaction, were reported in these studies.
CONCLUSION: The adapted/brief versions of MBSR seem promising for reducing psychological distress in nurses. Future research should include randomised controlled trials with a larger sample size and follow-up studies. There should also be a focus on creative and effective ways of delivering MBSR to nurses.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results of this review are substantial for supporting the use of MBSR for nurses' psychological well-being.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and the validity of the Persian version of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised among a sample of Iranian nurses.
RESEARCH DESIGN: In this methodological study, 310 nurses were recruited from all hospitals affiliated with the Qazvin University of Medical Sciences from February 2014 to April 2015. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire and the Moral Distress Scale-Revised. The construct validity of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised was evaluated using principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was approved by the Regional Committee of Medical Research Ethics. The ethical principles of voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality were considered.
FINDINGS: The construct validity of the scale showed four factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The model had a good fit (χ2(162) = 307.561, χ2/df = 1.899, goodness-of-fit index = .904, comparative fit index = .927, incremental fit index = .929, and root mean square error of approximation (90% confidence interval) = .049 (.040-.057)) with all factor loadings greater than .5 and statistically significant. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .853, .686, .685, and .711for the four factors. Moreover, the model structure was invariant across different income groups.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Persian version of the Moral Distress Scale-Revised demonstrated suitable validity and reliability among nurses. The factor analysis also revealed that the Moral Distress Scale-Revised has a multidimensional structure. Regarding the proper psychometric characteristics, the validated scale can be used to further research about moral distress in this population.
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.
BACKGROUND: Critical thinking is currently considered as an essential component of nurses' professional judgement and clinical decision-making. If confirmed, nursing curricula may be revised emphasising on critical thinking with the expectation to improve clinical decision-making and thus better health care.
DESIGN: Integrated literature review.
METHODS: The integrative review was carried out after a comprehensive literature search using electronic databases Ovid, EBESCO MEDLINE, EBESCO CINAHL, PROQuest and Internet search engine Google Scholar. Two hundred and 22 articles from January 1980 to end of 2015 were retrieved. All studies evaluating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, published in English language with nurses or nursing students as the study population, were included. No qualitative studies were found investigating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, while 10 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool. As a result, one study was excluded due to a low-quality score, with the remaining nine accepted for this review.
RESULTS: Four of nine studies established a positive relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making. Another five studies did not demonstrate a significant correlation. The lack of refinement in studies' design and instrumentation were arguably the main reasons for the inconsistent results.
CONCLUSIONS: Research studies yielded contradictory results as regard to the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making; therefore, the evidence is not convincing. Future quantitative studies should have representative sample size, use critical thinking measurement tools related to the healthcare sector and evaluate the predisposition of test takers towards their willingness and ability to think. There is also a need for qualitative studies to provide a fresh approach in exploring the relationship between these variables uncovering currently unknown contributing factors.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review confirmed that evidence to support the existence of relationships between critical thinking and clinical decision-making is still unsubstantiated. Therefore, it serves as a call for nurse leaders and nursing academics to produce quality studies in order to firmly support or reject the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant correlation between critical thinking and clinical decision-making.
METHODS: A 5-minute VBCI was developed comprising elements of psychoeducation and interviews of people with mental illness and the people they interact with, relating to experience of mental illness and recovery. A pre-post cross-sectional study was conducted on 206 randomly selected primary care nurses in Penang, Malaysia. The OMS-HC-15-M questionnaire was administered before and immediately after participants viewed the VBCI. The difference in mean pre-post VBCI scores using paired t-tests, effect size and standardised response mean (SRM) were obtained. Factors correlating to attitudes were obtained using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.
RESULTS: Differences in pre-post VBCI score were statistically significant (p<0.001) with a 14% score reduction, a moderate effect size and SRM at 0.97 (0.85-0.11) and 1.1 (0.97-1.2) respectively. By factoring in the Minimal Detectable Change statistic of 7.76, the VBCI produced a significant improvement of attitudes in 30% of the participants. Factors associated with less stigmatising attitudes at baseline were previous psychiatry-related training, desiring psychiatric training, and positive contact with people with mental illness.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in Malaysia to show that a brief VBCI is effective in improving attitudes of primary care nurses towards people with mental illness in the immediate term. Further studies are needed to determine if these results can be sustained in the longer term and generalizable to other health care professionals. Qualitative studies are warranted to provide insight to the factors correlating to these attitudes. (300 words).
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of self-perceived emotional distress and its relation to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs) in nurses.
METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire survey was carried out on 660 female nurses working in public hospitals in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. The validated Malay version of the standardized Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire (M-SNMQ) was used to identify the annual prevalence of WRMSDs; perceived emotional distress was assessed using the validated Malay short version, depression, anxiety, and stress (M-DASS) instrument. In addition, socio-demographic and occupational profiles of the participants were considered. Factors associated with WRMSDs were identified using logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 376 nurses completed the survey (response rate 83.3%). 73.1% of the nursing staffs experienced WRMSDs in at least one anatomical site 12 months prior to the study. 75% of nurses expressed emotional distress. Of these, over half also reported anxiety and stress. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that stress and anxiety significantly increased the risk of WRMSDs by approximately twofold.
CONCLUSION: There were significant associations between emotional distress and WRMSDs. Future longitudinal studies are therefore needed to investigate and identify the sources of emotional distress (non-occupational and occupational) to be used to establish preventive strategies to reduce the risk of WRMSDs.