PURPOSE
To determine the effect of hospital work environments on hospital outcomes across multiple countries.


DESIGN
Primary survey data using a common instrument were collected from separate cross sections of 98 116 bedside care nurses practising in 1406 hospitals in 9 countries between 1999 and 2009.


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Nurse burnout and job dissatisfaction, patient readiness for hospital discharge and quality of patient care.


RESULTS
High nurse burnout was found in hospitals in all countries except Germany, and ranged from roughly a third of nurses to about 60% of nurses in South Korea and Japan. Job dissatisfaction among nurses was close to 20% in most countries and as high as 60% in Japan. Close to half or more of nurses in every country lacked confidence that patients could care for themselves following discharge. Quality-of-care rated as fair or poor varied from 11% in Canada to 68% in South Korea. Between one-quarter and one-third of hospitals in each country were judged to have poor work environments. Working in a hospital with a better work environment was associated with significantly lower odds of nurse burnout and job dissatisfaction and with better quality-of-care outcomes.


CONCLUSIONS
Poor hospital work environments are common and are associated with negative outcomes for nurses and quality of care. Improving work environments holds promise for nurse retention and better quality of patient care.

https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/bitstream/22282913/95019/1/T201105164.pdf

Importance of work environments on hospital outcomes in nine countries

Background Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes. Objectives To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists). Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only). Main results We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals

Background: Prior research has investigated various strategies to improve health, wellbeing and the job-related outcomes of nurses. However, the scope of this evidence is not clear and the types of intervention most likely to have positive outcomes are unknown. Objective: To provide an overview and synthesis of the effectiveness of interventions conducted with the goal of improving health, wellbeing and the job-related outcomes of nurses. Methods: A systematic database search was conducted from January 2000 to December 2018, with pre-defined criteria (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE and PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; PsycINFO; and BioMed Central). In total, 136 intervention studies with a total sample of 16,129 participants (range 9–3381) were included and evaluated. Data extraction, quality assessment and risk of bias analyses were performed. Results: Studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; n = 52, 38%), randomised crossover design studies (n = 2, 1.5%) and non-randomised pre-post studies with a control group (n = 31, 23%) and without a control group (n = 51, 37.5%). The majority of interventions focused on education, physical activity, mindfulness, or relaxation. Thirty-seven (27%) studies had a multimodal intervention approach. On average, studies had relatively small samples (median = 61; mode = 30) and were conducted predominantly in North America (USA/Canada, n = 53). The findings were mixed overall, with some studies reporting benefits and others finding no effects. Dietary habits was the most successfully improved outcome (8/9), followed by indices of body composition (20/24), physical activity (PA) (11/14), and stress (49/66), with >70% of relevant studies in each of these categories reporting improvements. The lowest success rate was for work-related outcomes (16/32). Separate analysis of RCTs indicated that interventions that focus solely on education might be less likely to result in positive outcomes than interventions targeting behavioural change. Conclusions: Interventions targeting diet, body composition, PA, or stress are most likely to have positive outcomes for nurses’ health and/or wellbeing. The methodologically strongest evidence (RCTs) is available for body composition and stress. Interventions relying solely on educational approaches are least likely to be effective. Organisational outcomes appear to be more challenging to change with lifestyle intervention, likely requiring more complex solutions including changes to the work environment. There is a need for more high-quality evidence since many studies had moderate or high risk of bias and low reporting quality.

https://research.vumc.nl/ws/files/14913771/Proces_paper_Kids_in_Action.pdf

Effectiveness of Lifestyle Health Promotion Interventions for Nurses: A Systematic Review.

Our current understanding of the efficacy of psychological interventions in improving mental states of wellbeing is incomplete. This study aimed to overcome limitations of previous reviews by examining the efficacy of distinct types of psychological interventions, irrespective of their theoretical underpinning, and the impact of various moderators, in a unified systematic review and meta-analysis. Four-hundred-and-nineteen randomized controlled trials from clinical and non-clinical populations (n = 53,288) were identified for inclusion. Mindfulness-based and multi-component positive psychological interventions demonstrated the greatest efficacy in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Meta-analyses also found that singular positive psychological interventions, cognitive and behavioural therapy-based, acceptance and commitment therapy-based, and reminiscence interventions were impactful. Effect sizes were moderate at best, but differed according to target population and moderator, most notably intervention intensity. The evidence quality was generally low to moderate. While the evidence requires further advancement, the review provides insight into how psychological interventions can be designed to improve mental wellbeing. This meta-analysis of 419 randomized controlled trials found that various types of psychological interventions could improve mental wellbeing in clinical and non-clinical populations. Effect sizes tended to be small to moderate and were influenced by various moderators.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing.

Given the complex demands of many workplaces, there is growing interest in the potential beneficial effects of mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) for employees. This meta-analysis systematically synthesizes the results of randomized controlled studies conducted in various workplace settings. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search in four electronic databases and complementary manual search strategies through 11/2018. Random-effects models were used to synthesize data across 56 studies including n = 2689 participants and n = 2472 controls. The validity of synthesized effect size estimates was analyzed for heterogeneity and influential cases (outliers). Risk of bias was assessed following Cochrane recommendations. Analyses of between-group effects indicated that MBPs effectively reduce stress, burnout, mental distress, and somatic complaints, while improving mindfulness, well-being, compassion, and job satisfaction—all with small to large effect sizes ranging from Hedge’s g = 0.32 to 0.77. Results were maintained in follow-up assessments ≤ 12 weeks. Heterogeneity among primary studies was not explained consistently by program or participant characteristics in the exploratory moderator analyses. Results on work engagement and productivity were limited by low numbers of primary studies with outliers among their effect sizes. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that MBPs effectively promote the health and well-being of employees in various occupational settings. Further research is needed to investigate potential benefits on work-related outcomes and effects for longer-term follow-ups.

/pdf/mindfulness-based-programs-in-the-workplace-a-meta-analysis-2vz4l4u14k.pdf

Mindfulness-Based Programs in the Workplace: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of a modified mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program on the levels of stress, affect, and resilience among nurses in general hospitals in mainland China. In addition, the study attempted to determine the impact of the program on job satisfaction. A total of 110 nurses were randomly assigned to the intervention versus control groups. The intervention group participated in a modified 8-week MBSR program. All participants were evaluated with questionnaires at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and 3 months later. The intervention group showed decreases in stress and negative affect and increases in positive affect and resilience after the intervention. No improvement in job satisfaction was observed, but the trends of the data were in the hypothesized direction that job satisfaction would improve. The modified MBSR program is an effective approach for nurses to decrease stress and negative affect and improve positive affect and resilience. In addition, the program has the potential to improve job satisfaction.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2165079918801633

Jin Yan

Papers

The Effects of a Modified Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program for Nurses: A Randomized Controlled Trial