“SWell”儿童重症护理人员福利干预:可行性研究

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rachel L. Shaw, Amy Fox, Shoshana Gander-Zaucker, Karen Maher, Sally Crighton
{"title":"“SWell”儿童重症护理人员福利干预:可行性研究","authors":"Rachel L. Shaw,&nbsp;Amy Fox,&nbsp;Shoshana Gander-Zaucker,&nbsp;Karen Maher,&nbsp;Sally Crighton","doi":"10.1111/jep.70092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Paediatric Critical Care (PCC) staff experience high levels of stress, distress and burnout. The objective was to test feasibility of delivering staff wellbeing interventions in UK PCC units.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The method was a feasibility study of Staff Wellbeing interventions using standardized psychological measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study Design and Participants</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a multi-centre feasibility (non-randomised) study at 14 UK PCC units during 2023. Interdisciplinary PCC staff were recruited through principal investigators (PIs) at each site.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection Instruments</h3>\n \n <p>The primary outcome measure tested was the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Secondary outcome measures tested were: Brief Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with acceptability and feasibility surveys. All were completed online using Qualtrics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Procedures</h3>\n \n <p>Two ‘SWell’ Staff Wellbeing interventions were tested: Mad-Sad-Glad and Wellbeing Images with Appreciative Inquiry. They were low-intensity, group-based, structured reflective discussions delivered by PIs. Baseline measures (<i>t</i>0) were completed by 596 staff, 264 (43%) completed immediate post-intervention (<i>t</i>1), with 6% and 5% at 3 (<i>t</i>2) and 6 (<i>t</i>3) months post-intervention, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>50% (<i>n</i> = 14) of UK PCC units delivered 104 interventions to 573 staff demonstrating delivery feasibility.</p>\n \n <p>Wilcoxon signed-rank tests found that wellbeing scores and depression scores were significantly improved in matched pairs (<i>t</i>0, <i>t</i>1; <i>n</i> = 130). Staff ratings indicated high acceptability and feasibility for incorporating interventions into everyday practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>‘SWell’ interventions are feasible to deliver. Pre/post data collection is possible but significant attrition prohibited long-term follow-up. Significant improvements in wellbeing demonstrated appropriateness of outcome measures to detect changes in psychological wellbeing. Further evaluation work is required to determine whether positive changes are sustainable longer-term.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70092","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘SWell’ Staff Wellbeing Interventions in Paediatric Critical Care: A Feasibility Study\",\"authors\":\"Rachel L. Shaw,&nbsp;Amy Fox,&nbsp;Shoshana Gander-Zaucker,&nbsp;Karen Maher,&nbsp;Sally Crighton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Paediatric Critical Care (PCC) staff experience high levels of stress, distress and burnout. The objective was to test feasibility of delivering staff wellbeing interventions in UK PCC units.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The method was a feasibility study of Staff Wellbeing interventions using standardized psychological measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Study Design and Participants</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a multi-centre feasibility (non-randomised) study at 14 UK PCC units during 2023. Interdisciplinary PCC staff were recruited through principal investigators (PIs) at each site.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data Collection Instruments</h3>\\n \\n <p>The primary outcome measure tested was the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Secondary outcome measures tested were: Brief Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with acceptability and feasibility surveys. All were completed online using Qualtrics.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Procedures</h3>\\n \\n <p>Two ‘SWell’ Staff Wellbeing interventions were tested: Mad-Sad-Glad and Wellbeing Images with Appreciative Inquiry. They were low-intensity, group-based, structured reflective discussions delivered by PIs. Baseline measures (<i>t</i>0) were completed by 596 staff, 264 (43%) completed immediate post-intervention (<i>t</i>1), with 6% and 5% at 3 (<i>t</i>2) and 6 (<i>t</i>3) months post-intervention, respectively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>50% (<i>n</i> = 14) of UK PCC units delivered 104 interventions to 573 staff demonstrating delivery feasibility.</p>\\n \\n <p>Wilcoxon signed-rank tests found that wellbeing scores and depression scores were significantly improved in matched pairs (<i>t</i>0, <i>t</i>1; <i>n</i> = 130). Staff ratings indicated high acceptability and feasibility for incorporating interventions into everyday practice.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>‘SWell’ interventions are feasible to deliver. Pre/post data collection is possible but significant attrition prohibited long-term follow-up. Significant improvements in wellbeing demonstrated appropriateness of outcome measures to detect changes in psychological wellbeing. Further evaluation work is required to determine whether positive changes are sustainable longer-term.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70092\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70092\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70092","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

儿科重症监护(PCC)工作人员经历高水平的压力,痛苦和倦怠。目的是测试在英国PCC单位提供员工福利干预的可行性。材料与方法采用标准化的心理测量方法进行员工幸福感干预的可行性研究。研究设计和参与者我们于2023年在14个英国PCC单位进行了一项多中心可行性(非随机)研究。跨学科的PCC工作人员是通过每个站点的首席研究员(pi)招聘的。测试的主要结果测量是Short Warwick Edinburgh心理健康量表。测试的次要结果测量是:简要心理弹性量表、医院焦虑和抑郁量表以及可接受性和可行性调查。所有测试均使用qualics在线完成。测试了两种“SWell”员工福利干预措施:疯狂-悲伤-高兴和幸福图像与欣赏询问。它们是由pi提供的低强度、以小组为基础、结构化的反思性讨论。596名工作人员完成了基线测量(t0), 264名(43%)在干预后立即完成(t1), 6%和5%分别在干预后3 (t2)和6 (t3)个月完成。结果50% (n = 14)的英国PCC单位向573名工作人员提供了104项干预措施,证明了交付的可行性。Wilcoxon sign -rank检验发现,配对组的幸福感得分和抑郁得分显著提高(t0, t1;n = 130)。工作人员的评分表明,将干预措施纳入日常实践的可接受性和可行性很高。讨论“SWell”干预措施是否可行。收集前后数据是可能的,但严重减员禁止长期随访。幸福感的显著改善证明了检测心理健康变化的结果措施的适当性。需要进行进一步的评价工作,以确定积极的变化是否能够长期持续。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘SWell’ Staff Wellbeing Interventions in Paediatric Critical Care: A Feasibility Study

Introduction

Paediatric Critical Care (PCC) staff experience high levels of stress, distress and burnout. The objective was to test feasibility of delivering staff wellbeing interventions in UK PCC units.

Materials and Methods

The method was a feasibility study of Staff Wellbeing interventions using standardized psychological measures.

Study Design and Participants

We conducted a multi-centre feasibility (non-randomised) study at 14 UK PCC units during 2023. Interdisciplinary PCC staff were recruited through principal investigators (PIs) at each site.

Data Collection Instruments

The primary outcome measure tested was the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Secondary outcome measures tested were: Brief Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with acceptability and feasibility surveys. All were completed online using Qualtrics.

Procedures

Two ‘SWell’ Staff Wellbeing interventions were tested: Mad-Sad-Glad and Wellbeing Images with Appreciative Inquiry. They were low-intensity, group-based, structured reflective discussions delivered by PIs. Baseline measures (t0) were completed by 596 staff, 264 (43%) completed immediate post-intervention (t1), with 6% and 5% at 3 (t2) and 6 (t3) months post-intervention, respectively.

Results

50% (n = 14) of UK PCC units delivered 104 interventions to 573 staff demonstrating delivery feasibility.

Wilcoxon signed-rank tests found that wellbeing scores and depression scores were significantly improved in matched pairs (t0, t1; n = 130). Staff ratings indicated high acceptability and feasibility for incorporating interventions into everyday practice.

Discussion

‘SWell’ interventions are feasible to deliver. Pre/post data collection is possible but significant attrition prohibited long-term follow-up. Significant improvements in wellbeing demonstrated appropriateness of outcome measures to detect changes in psychological wellbeing. Further evaluation work is required to determine whether positive changes are sustainable longer-term.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信