Mental Health Promotion Intervention for Nurses Working in German Psychiatric Hospital Departments: A Pilot Study

Effects of interventions to promote resilience in nurses: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Various trials are investigating the effect of digital and face-to-face interventions on nurse resilience; however, it remains unclear whether these interventions have immediate, short-term or long-term effects.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the systematic review is to identify the types of interventions and assess the immediate (<3 months), short-term (3-6 months), and long-term (>6 months) effects of these interventions on nurse resilience.

DESIGN

This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registered Number: CRD 42023434924), and results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol.

METHODS

Data were collated from the databases of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase (OVID), Medline, and Scopus between March and May 2023. The research protocol was determined following the framework of population, exposure, outcomes, and type of study. The articles with full text published between 2000 and 2023 were included. Studies were included if they (1) involved the nurses who provided patient care directly, (2) utilised digital or face-to-face interventions, (3) reported resilience outcomes, and (4) were randomised controlled trials or clinical trials. The JBI critical appraisal tool was utilised to assess the risk of bias for the studies collected.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies met the criteria and were analysed. Pooled results demonstrated that digital interventions had a statistically significant positive effect on nurse resilience at 4-5-month follow-ups (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.71; 95 % CI = 0.13, 1.29; P = 0.02) compared to no interventions. Additionally, pooled data showed no effect on nurse resilience at all the follow-ups, compared to no interventions. No significant results were observed in comparisons of digital or face-to-face interventions between the intervention and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The review assessed digital and face-to-face resilience interventions in nurses across 18 trials. Digital methods showed a short-term impact within 4-5 months, whilst face-to-face interventions had no effect during follow-ups. Realistic expectations, ongoing support, and tailored interventions are crucial for nurse resilience enhancement. Tweetable abstract It was identified digital interventions had a short-term impact on nurse resilience, whilst face-to-face interventions had no effect during follow-ups @fionayyu.

Key factors for effective implementation of healthcare workers support interventions after patient safety incidents in health organisations: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to map and frame the main factors present in support interventions successfully implemented in health organisations in order to provide timely and adequate response to healthcare workers (HCWs) after patient safety incidents (PSIs).

DESIGN

Scoping review guided by the six-stage approach proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and by PRISMA-ScR.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, PubMed, SciELO Citation Index, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, reference lists of the eligible articles, websites and a consultation group.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Empirical studies (original articles) were prioritised. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2018 to conduct a quality assessment of the eligible studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A total of 9766 records were retrieved (last update in November 2022). We assessed 156 articles for eligibility in the full-text screening. Of these, 29 earticles met the eligibility criteria. The articles were independently screened by two authors. In the case of disagreement, a third author was involved. The collected data were organised according to the Organisational factors, People, Environment, Recommendations from other Audies, Attributes of the support interventions. We used EndNote to import articles from the databases and Rayyan to support the screening of titles and abstracts.

RESULTS

The existence of an organisational culture based on principles of trust and non-judgement, multidisciplinary action, leadership engagement and strong dissemination of the support programmes' were crucial factors for their effective implementation. Training should be provided for peer supporters and leaders to facilitate the response to HCWs' needs. Regular communication among the implementation team, allocation of protected time, funding and continuous monitoring are useful elements to the sustainability of the programmes.

CONCLUSION

HCWs' well-being depends on an adequate implementation of a complex group of interrelated factors to support them after PSIs.

[Comparison of behavioral orthopedic and classical orthopedic rehabilitation : A retrospective cohort study on the factors of mental comorbidity, gender and employment status]

BACKGROUND

Mental comorbidity plays an increasingly important role in determining the specific rehabilitation needs of patients in Germany in the context of other personal, social and occupational factors. In order to make the DRV's list of criteria more meaningful when assigning patients to one type of rehabilitation, this retrospective analysis is intended to determine from which of the two rehabilitation concepts examined (orthopedic rehabilitation or healing procedures (HV)/behavioral-medical orthopedic rehabilitation (BMOR)) patients with mental comorbidity (taking into account gender, employment status of the main orthopedic diagnosis) benefit more.

METHODS

Using the screening questionnaires HADS‑A, HADS‑D, SIMBO and BPI as well as a hospital questionnaire at the beginning of rehabilitation, data from 913 subjects (529 m/384 w) were collected and evaluated. Of these, 43% were assigned to HV and 57% to BMOR. Thus, in addition to the main orthopedic diagnosis, the frequency distribution of the factors psychological comorbidity, sex and, employment status (in the sense of unemployment) was determined. Using HADS, the benefit was determined at the end of the therapy by comparing the score medians.

RESULTS

Frequency distributions and the development of HADS scores show that the prior classification according to psychological comorbidity was correct. Women were more often affected by mental comorbidity and women achieved greater success in BMOR. Regarding the main orthopedic diagnosis, a high prevalence of cervical and lumbar spine complaints was found. According to logistic regression with model decomposition, the variables gender, HADS‑A and -D at the beginning of rehabilitation and the psychological comorbidity (yes/no) are suitable to correctly allocate the patients with 76.86% to one of the two types of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of mental comorbidity appears to be a useful indicator that should be retained in the DRV's criteria catalog as one of the main criteria for allocation to BMOR. Female gender in connection with the presence of mental co-morbidity can also be considered a conclusive criterion. With regard to the main orthopedic diagnosis, cervical spine complaints may be particularly suitable as an allocation criterion.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

A rapid review of evaluated interventions to inform the development of a resource to support the resilience of care home nurses

BACKGOUND

Nurses working in care homes face significant challenges that are unique to that context. The importance of effective resilience building interventions as a strategy to enable recovery and growth in these times of uncertainty have been advocated. The aim of this rapid review was to inform the development of a resource to support the resilience of care home nurses. We explored existing empirical evidence as to the efficacy of resilience building interventions. undertaken with nurses.

METHODS

We undertook a rapid review using quantitative studies published in peer reviewed journals that reported resilience scores using a valid and reliable scale before and after an intervention aimed at supporting nurse resilience. The databases; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline and PsychInfo. and the Cochrane Library were searched. The searches were restricted to studies published between January 2011 and October 2021 in the English language. Only studies that reported using a validated tool to measure resilience before and after the interventions were included.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in this rapid review with over half of the studies taking place in the USA. No studies reported on an intervention to support resilience with care home nurses. The interventions focused primarily on hospital-based nurses in general and specialist contexts. The interventions varied in duration content and mode of delivery, with interventions incorporating mindfulness techniques, cognitive reframing and holistic approaches to building and sustaining resilience. Thirteen of the fifteen studies selected demonstrated an increase in resilience scores as measured by validated and reliable scales. Those studies incorporating 'on the job,' easily accessible practices that promote self-awareness and increase sense of control reported significant differences in pre and post intervention resilience scores.

CONCLUSION

Nurses continue to face significant challenges, their capacity to face these challenges can be nurtured through interventions focused on strengthening individual resources. The content, duration, and mode of delivery of interventions to support resilience should be tailored through co-design processes to ensure they are both meaningful and responsive to differing contexts and populations.

Positive affect and job performance in psychiatric nurses: A moderated mediation analysis

AIMS

The aims of this research were (a) to determine if job satisfaction plays an intermediary role between positive affect and job performance; (b) to explore whether the mediating process of positive affect affecting job performance through job satisfaction is moderated by the work seniority of psychiatric nurses.

DESIGN

A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study.

METHODS

From January 2021 to May 2022, a total of 328 psychiatric nurses were recruited through online advertisements. Data regarding positive affect, job satisfaction, work seniority and job performance were obtained through survey questionnaires. The moderated mediation model was examined in this study utilizing the SPSS (Version 26.0) macro process 3.3, with job satisfaction as the mediation variable and work seniority as the moderation variable.

RESULTS

Job performance and job satisfaction were both positively connected with positive affect, while job satisfaction was favourably correlated with job performance. Job satisfaction played a part mediating role between positive affect and job performance, with an effect value of 0.10, accounting for 22.22% of the total effect. And work seniority moderated the second half of the mediating process.

CONCLUSION

Positive affect positively affected job performance through two paths, directly or indirectly. Part of the intermediate role of job satisfaction between positive affect and job performance is regulated by seniority; that is, work seniority buffered the positive effect of positive affect on job performance.

IMPACT

This study revealed how positive affect works and elaborated the conditions to play a role, which greatly enriched the content of positive psychology and had important significance for deepening and expanding the relationship between positive affect and job performance. It also provided a reference for nursing managers to implement humanized management, build a high-performance psychiatric nurse team and promote the long-term development of psychiatric hospitals.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Three hundred and twenty-eight psychiatric nurses participated in the questionnaire. Trained staff were involved in data collection.

Interventions to foster resilience in nursing staff: A systematic review and meta-analyses of pre-pandemic evidence

BACKGROUND

Given the chronic work-related stressors experienced by nursing staff in today's healthcare systems, international evidence suggests an elevated risk of developing stress-related mental symptoms. Therefore, identifying effective methods to foster resilience (i.e., maintenance or fast recovery of mental health despite stressor exposure) seems crucial. To date, little is known about the efficacy of these interventions in nurses.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed at summarizing the evidence on the pre-pandemic efficacy of psychological interventions to foster resilience, to improve mental symptoms and well-being as well as to promote resilience factors in nurses. Based on training programs with evidence for positive effects on resilience and mental health in meta-analyses, we aimed at identifying important and helpful intervention techniques.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses based on a Cochrane review on pre-pandemic resilience interventions in healthcare professionals.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and 11 other databases were searched until June 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Trial registers, reference lists and contact with authors were additional sources.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses for five primary outcomes, including resilience. The intervention contents and techniques were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Of 39,794 records retrieved, 24 studies were included in the review (N = 1879 randomized participants), 17 in meta-analyses (n = 1020 participants). At post-intervention, we found very-low certainty evidence of moderate effects in favor of resilience training for resilience (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.39; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.12-0.66) and well-being (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.15-0.72), while there was no evidence of effects on symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress. The improvement of well-being was sustained in the short-term (≤3 months), with additional delayed benefits for anxiety and stress. There was no evidence of effects at later follow-ups, with the caveat of only three available studies. Among nine programs with evidence of positive moderate effect sizes, intervention contents included mindfulness and relaxation, psychoeducation, emotion regulation, cognitive strategies, problem-solving and the strengthening of internal and external resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the chronic stressor exposure in nursing staff, our findings may guide both the design and implementation of nurse-directed resilience interventions. To improve the certainty of evidence, more rigorous high-quality research using improved study designs (e.g., larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods) is urgently needed.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017082827.

Workplace health promotion interventions for nurses in Germany: a systematic review based on the RE-AIM framework

Background

The German health care system is faced with a serious shortage of nurses. This is associated, amongst other things, with difficult working conditions and work-related health burdens. Workplace health promotion (WHP) is considered a promising approach to promote the health of nurses. The present review aims to give an overview on existing interventions in different nursing settings (acute care hospitals, long-term care (LTC) facilities and home-based long-term care) in Germany.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and PubPsych. Studies were included if published after 2010 and provided data of intervention studies on workplace health promotion among nurses in Germany (RCTs, non-RCTs, non-controlled intervention studies and pilot studies). The setting in which the study was conducted (acute medical care hospital, inpatient LTC facilities, home-based LTC, cross-setting) as well as the health issue assessed (physical health, mental health and/or violence experience) were extracted. The intervention was reported against the background of the quality criteria for prevention measures of the statutory health insurers in Germany. The results of the studies were presented according to the RE-AIM framework.

Results

Eleven studies on WHP for nurses were included, whereof seven studies were conducted in acute medical care hospitals and four in LTC facilities. No study reported results on WHP for nurses working in the setting of home-based LTC. Most studies aimed at improving mental health. The intervention contents and forms of implementation were heterogeneous. According to the RE-AIM criteria, the reporting of most studies showed several limitations, especially a lack of reporting on Implementation and Adoption. Most studies showed no statistically significant effect on the respective outcomes (Effectiveness). Four studies reported results on Maintenance indicating a sustained effectiveness.

Conclusion

Despite the high relevance for health promotion for nurses, our review showed a striking lack of intervention studies in this field. From this we derive a high need of tailored interventions, taking into account the setting-specific development, implementation of WHP interventions for nurses. With regard to the evaluation, the RE-AIM criteria should be taken more into account in order to meet the requirements of evaluating complex interventions and thus contribute to evidence development of WHP in nursing. In terms of content, the topic of violence prevention and dealing with experiences of violence should also be taken into account. Regarding the settings, the working conditions and health burdens in LTC facilities, home-based LTC and acute medical hospitals must be considered.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021231891

A Group Intervention to Promote Resilience in Nursing Professionals: A Randomised Controlled Trial

In this study, a new group intervention program to foster resilience in nursing professionals was tested for efficacy. In total, 72 nurses were recruited and randomised to either an intervention condition or to a wait list control condition. The study had a pre-test, post-test, follow-up design. The eight-week program targeted six resilience factors: cognitive flexibility, coping, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-care, and mindfulness. Compared to the control group, the intervention group reported a significant improvement in the primary outcome mental health (measured with the General Health Questionnaire) from pre-test (M = 20.79; SD = 9.85) to post-test (M = 15.81; SD = 7.13) with an estimated medium effect size (p = 0.03, η² = 0.08) at post-test. Further significant improvements were found for resilience and other resilience related outcomes measures. The individual stressor load of the subjects was queried retrospectively in each measurement. Stress levels had a significant influence on mental health. The intervention effect was evident even though the stress level in both groups did not change significantly between the measurements. Follow-up data suggest that the effects were sustained for up to six months after intervention. The resilience intervention reduced mental burden in nurses and also positively affected several additional psychological outcomes.

Prevalence and severity of verbal, physical, and sexual inpatient violence against nurses in Swiss psychiatric hospitals and associated nurse-related characteristics: Cross-sectional multicentre study

This analysis (1) describes the prevalence and severity of psychiatric inpatient violence against nurses in Switzerland's German-speaking region and (2) investigates the associations between nurse-related characteristics (socio-demographics; previous exposure to severe forms of psychiatric inpatient violence; attitude towards psychiatric inpatient violence) and nurses' exposure to various types of psychiatric inpatient violence. We used cross-sectional survey data from the Match^RN Psychiatry study sample of 1128 nurses working on 115 units across 13 psychiatric hospitals. In addition to lifetime severe assaults, nurses' exposure to violence against property, verbal violence, verbal sexual violence, physical violence, and physical sexual violence was assessed for the 30 days prior to the survey. Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) were calculated for each class of violence as also for items under study. With generalized linear mixed models, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Of nurse respondents, 73% reported facing verbal violence, 63% violence against property, 40% verbal sexual violence, 28% physical violence, and 14% physical sexual violence. Almost 30% had been subjected to a serious assault in their professional lifetimes. All nurse characteristics were associated with psychiatric inpatient violence against nurses, especially a history of sexual assault (OR 4.53, 95%-CI 2.19-9.34; P = 0.00) and ≤3 years' professional experience (OR 3.70, 95%-CI 1.95-7.02; P = 0.00). Prevalence data suggest that widely used strategies such as aggression management courses or alarm devices cannot fully reduce patient violence against nurses in psychiatry. This situation demands proactive strategies in safety and violence prevention.

Individual-Level Interventions for Decreasing Job-Related Stress and Enhancing Coping Strategies Among Nurses: A Systematic Review

Background: Nurses are facing unprecedented amounts of pressure because of the ongoing global health challenges. Improving nurses' resilience to job-related stress and enhancing their strategies to cope effectively with stressors are key issues facing many health care institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This literature review aimed to: a) provide a thorough overview of individual-level interventions for stress management among nurses, b) identify measurement tools utilized to evaluate nurses' stress level, and c) provide the best evidence-based recommendations for future research and practice adapted to the current restrictions. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Studies published between January 2000 and October 2020 were retrieved from the following sources: EBSCOhost, Dortmund University Library, PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, Applied Nursing Research, and reference lists from relevant articles. Review methods: Individual-level interventions with a control group or a placebo intervention were included in the final sample. Primary outcome was defined as a change in individual stress level or stress symptoms which were measured by objective or subjective instruments with evidence of validity. Articles published in English or German were included in the present review. Results: In total, 27 relevant studies were included into the current review. There are some indications that technology-delivered interventions with relaxation and stress management interventions comprising cognitive-behavioral components might be effective in decreasing stress among nurses and improving their well-being. Furthermore, although there were some attempts to collect objectively measured parameters for assessing the primary outcome of stress, the majority of the interventions utilized self-reported stress scales. Conclusion: A wide range of interventions are available for nurses. However, it is of utmost importance to develop and implement stress management programs that are conveniently accessible in the workplace and above all, meet the current restrictions for minimizing human contacts. To this end, innovative interventions delivered through digital technology, such as virtual reality, seem to be a promising solution for combating the detrimental impact of stress on nurses. Special attention should be also paid to applying standardized objective measurement tools to allow the assessment of sensitive physiological indices and the generalizability of scientific knowledge.

Universal and Selective Interventions to Prevent Poor Mental Health Outcomes in Young People: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Much is not known about the efficacy of interventions to prevent poor mental health outcomes in young people by targeting either the general population (universal prevention) or asymptomatic individuals with high risk of developing a mental disorder (selective prevention).

METHODS

We conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of Web of Science to identify studies comparing post-test efficacy (effect size [ES]; Hedges' g) of universal or selective interventions for poor mental health outcomes versus control groups, in samples with mean age <35 years (PROSPERO: CRD42018102143). Measurements included random-effects models, I2 statistics, publication bias, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, quality assessments, number needed to treat, and population impact number.

RESULTS

295 articles (447,206 individuals; mean age = 15.4) appraising 17 poor mental health outcomes were included. Compared to control conditions, universal and selective interventions improved (in descending magnitude order) interpersonal violence, general psychological distress, alcohol use, anxiety features, affective symptoms, other emotional and behavioral problems, consequences of alcohol use, posttraumatic stress disorder features, conduct problems, tobacco use, externalizing behaviors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder features, and cannabis use, but not eating-related problems, impaired functioning, internalizing behavior, or sleep-related problems. Psychoeducation had the highest effect size for ADHD features, affective symptoms, and interpersonal violence. Psychotherapy had the highest effect size for anxiety features.

CONCLUSION

Universal and selective preventive interventions for young individuals are feasible and can improve poor mental health outcomes.

Identifying the evidence base of interventions supporting mental health nurses to cope with stressful working environments: A scoping review

AIM

To scope the evidence on interventions used to help mental health nurses cope with stressful working environments.

BACKGROUND

Nursing managers may implement interventions to support mental health nurses cope in their role. However, the evidence supporting these interventions has not been recently reviewed.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted which entailed searching and selecting potential studies, undertaking data extraction and synthesis.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies published since 2000 were identified. They employed different designs, ten used quasi-experimental methods. Interventions involving active learning appeared beneficial, for example stress reduction courses and mindfulness. However, small sample sizes, short follow-up periods and variation in outcome measures make it difficult to identify the optimum interventions. No studies have considered cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that mental health nurses benefit from interventions to help them cope with stressful working environments. However, higher quality research is needed to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Managers should provide opportunities and encourage mental health nurses to engage in active learning interventions, for example mindfulness to help them cope with stressful working environments. Nurses also want managers to address organisational issues; however, no research on these types of interventions was identified.

Stressoren, Stresserleben und Stressfolgen von Pflegekräften im ambulanten und stationären Setting in Deutschland

Dieser Beitrag liefert einen Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand zu arbeitsbedingtem Stress in der ambulanten und stationären Pflege. Dabei wird auf Stressoren (z. B. Zeitdruck) und das Stresserleben, ebenso wie auf kurz- und langfristige Folgen von Stress (z. B. emotionale Erschöpfung und Burnout) in der Pflegebranche eingegangen. Des Weiteren werden Möglichkeiten zum Umgang mit Stress und zur Gesundheitsförderung von Pflegekräften beleuchtet. Im Ausland wurden bisher mehr Studien zu arbeitsbedingtem Stress unter Pflegekräften, insbesondere zu Burnout als Folge von Stress, durchgeführt als in Deutschland. Vor dem Hintergrund aktueller struktureller Herausforderungen für die Pflegebranche zeigt sich ein dringender Forschungsbedarf bezüglich der Arbeits- und Gesundheitssituation von ambulant und stationär tätigen Pflegekräften in Deutschland.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals

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.