Critical care nurses' and physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviors in mobilizing older adult patients: implications for optimizing geriatric care.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Shimmaa Mohamed Elsayed, Asmaa Mahmoud Ali Ibrahim, Sameer A Alkubati, Mohamed Hussein Ramadan Atta, Heba Hashem Monged
{"title":"Critical care nurses' and physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviors in mobilizing older adult patients: implications for optimizing geriatric care.","authors":"Shimmaa Mohamed Elsayed, Asmaa Mahmoud Ali Ibrahim, Sameer A Alkubati, Mohamed Hussein Ramadan Atta, Heba Hashem Monged","doi":"10.1186/s12912-025-03696-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to identify knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding older adult patients' mobilization from the perspectives of critical care nurses (CCNs) and physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The researchers employed a cross-sectional study design following the STROBE guidelines. A total of 136 CCNs and 64 physicians completed an online electronic survey. This single-center study utilized the PMABS-ICU questionnaire and adopted a convenience sampling method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred voluntary participants were involved in our study. The mean (SD) of the overall barrier score for CCNs was 113.16(16.7), significantly higher than the 107.75(10.9) reported by physicians (P = 0.007). The mean (SD) attitude in CCNs was 26.75(5.00), which was of higher significance (p = 0.000) than physicians at 23.56(4.78). CCNs had a higher total mean (SD) behavior subscale, 45.22(11.20), than physicians, 44.39(4.79), with no statistically significant differences between them (p = 0.461). There was a moderate positive correlation between the overall score and subscale knowledge (p = 0.000), attitude (p = 0.000), and behavior (p = 0.000).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CCNs reported that barriers to older adult patients' mobility were perceived as higher than physicians. Safety fears and anticipation regarding falling can hinder CCNs' initial attempts to promote the mobility of older adult patients, while physicians perceive time constraints as a hurdle.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>Mobility barriers among older adult patients in ICUs were reported to be higher among CCNs than physicians, with fear of injury and safety concerns being the most significant barriers.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":48580,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nursing","volume":"24 1","pages":"1173"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12447592/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03696-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to identify knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding older adult patients' mobilization from the perspectives of critical care nurses (CCNs) and physicians.

Methods: The researchers employed a cross-sectional study design following the STROBE guidelines. A total of 136 CCNs and 64 physicians completed an online electronic survey. This single-center study utilized the PMABS-ICU questionnaire and adopted a convenience sampling method.

Results: Two hundred voluntary participants were involved in our study. The mean (SD) of the overall barrier score for CCNs was 113.16(16.7), significantly higher than the 107.75(10.9) reported by physicians (P = 0.007). The mean (SD) attitude in CCNs was 26.75(5.00), which was of higher significance (p = 0.000) than physicians at 23.56(4.78). CCNs had a higher total mean (SD) behavior subscale, 45.22(11.20), than physicians, 44.39(4.79), with no statistically significant differences between them (p = 0.461). There was a moderate positive correlation between the overall score and subscale knowledge (p = 0.000), attitude (p = 0.000), and behavior (p = 0.000).

Conclusion: CCNs reported that barriers to older adult patients' mobility were perceived as higher than physicians. Safety fears and anticipation regarding falling can hinder CCNs' initial attempts to promote the mobility of older adult patients, while physicians perceive time constraints as a hurdle.

Implications for practice: Mobility barriers among older adult patients in ICUs were reported to be higher among CCNs than physicians, with fear of injury and safety concerns being the most significant barriers.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

危重病护理护士和医生的知识、态度和自我报告的行为在动员老年患者:优化老年护理的意义。
目的:本研究旨在从危重病护理护士和医生的角度了解老年患者动员的知识、态度和行为。方法:研究者遵循STROBE指南采用横断面研究设计。共有136名ccn和64名医生完成了在线电子调查。本研究采用单中心PMABS-ICU问卷,采用方便抽样方法。结果:200名志愿者参与了我们的研究。ccn总屏障评分的平均(SD)为113.16(16.7),显著高于医师报告的107.75(10.9)(P = 0.007)。CCNs的平均态度(SD)为26.75(5.00),显著高于内科医生的23.56(4.78)(p = 0.000)。ccn的总平均(SD)行为分量表为45.22(11.20),高于内科医生的44.39(4.79),两者差异无统计学意义(p = 0.461)。总分与子量表知识(p = 0.000)、态度(p = 0.000)、行为(p = 0.000)呈中度正相关。结论:CCNs报告老年患者的活动障碍被认为高于医生。对摔倒的安全担忧和预期可能会阻碍CCNs最初尝试促进老年患者的活动能力,而医生认为时间限制是一个障碍。实践意义:据报道,ccn中icu老年患者的行动障碍高于医生,害怕受伤和安全问题是最重要的障碍。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Nursing
BMC Nursing Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
317
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nursing is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of nursing research, training, education and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信