| Literature DB >> 27104550 |
Simona Karpavičiūtė1, Jūratė Macijauskienė2.
Abstract
Over 59 million workers are employed in the healthcare sector globally, with a daily risk of being exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of arts activity on the well-being of nursing staff. During October-December 2014, 115 nursing staff working in a hospital, took part in this study, which lasted for 10 weeks. The intervention group (n = 56) took part in silk painting activities once a week. Data was collected using socio-demographic questions, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire, Reeder stress scale, and Multidimensional fatigue inventory (before and after art activities in both groups). Statistical data analysis included descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation), non-parametric statistics analysis (Man Whitney U Test; Wilcoxon signed-ranks test), Fisher's exact test and reliability analysis (Cronbach's Alpha). The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. In the intervention group, there was a tendency for participation in arts activity having a positive impact on their general health and mental well-being, reducing stress and fatigue, awaking creativity and increasing a sense of community at work. The control group did not show any improvements. Of the intervention group 93% reported enjoyment, with 75% aspiring to continue arts activity in the future. This research suggests that arts activity, as a workplace intervention, can be used to promote nursing staff well-being at work.Entities:
Keywords: arts activity; arts for health; mental health and well-being; nursing staff; occupational stress management; organizational well-being; silk painting; workplace interventions
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27104550 PMCID: PMC4847097 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13040435
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic and social characteristics of intervention (n = 56) and control (n = 59) groups.
| Characteristics * | Intervention Group | Control Group |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Female | 56 (100) | 59 (100) |
| Age in groups (years) | ||
| 21–24 | 7 (12) | 2 (3) |
| 25–39 | 11 (20) | 9 (15) |
| 40–54 | 32 (57) | 33 (56) |
| 55–70 | 6 (11) | 15 (25) |
| Education | ||
| Secondary | 9 (16) | 7 (12) |
| Vocational
| 16 (29) | 30 (51) |
| Higher non-university | 17 (30) | 14 (24) |
| Higher university | 14 (25) | 8 (13) |
| Position at work | ||
| Nurse | 39 (70) | 48 (81) |
| Nurse assistant | 17 (30) | 11 (19) |
| Work experience as nurses/nurse assistants (years) | ||
| 1–5 | 15 (27) | 9 (15) |
| 6–10 | 15 (27) | 8 (14) |
| 11–15 | 3 (5) | 5 (8) |
| 16–20 | 8 (14) | 11 (19) |
| ≥21 | 15 (27) | 26 (44) |
| Work experience at this hospital (years) | ||
| 1–5 | 15 (27) | 15 (25) |
| 6–10 | 14 (25) | 12 (20) |
| 11–15 | 4 (7) | 5 (8) |
| 16–20 | 7 (12) | 9 (15) |
| ≥21 | 16 (29) | 18 (31) |
| Department | ||
| Palliative care | 12 (21) | 13 (22) |
| Surgery | 19 (34) | 18 (31) |
| Therapeutic | 10 (18) | 8 (14) |
| Emergency | 6 (11) | 9 (15) |
| Obstetrics | 4 (7) | 5 (8) |
| Intensive care | 5 (9) | 6 (10) |
| Personal workload in this hospital | ||
| 0.6–1.0 full working time | 29 (52) | 27 (46) |
| More than 1.1–1.5 full working time | 27 (48) | 32 (54) |
| Work shift | ||
| Day | 23 (41) | 20 (25) |
| Night | 4 (7) | 8 (17) |
| 24-h | 1 (2) | 5 (14) |
| Rotating | 28 (50) | 26 (44) |
| Work is physically exhausting | ||
| Rarely | 5 (9) | 4 (7) |
| Sometimes | 10 (18) | 20 (34) |
| Often | 27 (48) | 22 (37) |
| Always | 14 (25) | 13 (22) |
| Work is emotionally difficult | ||
| Rarely | 1 (2) | 4 (7) |
| Sometimes | 8 (14) | 17 (29) |
| Often | 24 (43) | 21 (35) |
| Always | 23 (41) | 17 (29) |
Note *—There were no statistical differences between the groups in demographic and social characteristics, when p > 0.05; ** This is nursing education for those that graduated from medical school before 2001. All medical schools became colleges after the education reform, some courses were closed down for good and others were reformed.
The differences in the total scores in SF-36, MFI-20, WEMWBS and Stress subscales/scales between baseline and post-intervention in the intervention group.
| Title of Subscale/Scale | The Differences in the Total Scores in Subscales/Scales between Baseline ** and Post-intervention *** in the Intervention Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before Art Activities, | After Art Activities, | ( | |
| SF-36 Physical functioning | 86 (14) | 82 (15) | (0.06) |
| SF-36 General health | 56 (14) | 57 (15) | (0.25) |
| SF-36 Vitality/Energy | 58 (15) | 66 (14) |
|
| SF-36 Social functioning | 70 (19) | 76 (20) | (0.06) |
| SF-36 Bodily pain | 70 (20) | 73 (18) | (0.36) |
| SF-36 Role limitations (physical problems) | 78 (27) | 79 (33) | (0.74) |
| SF-36 Role limitations (emotional problems) | 76 (28) | 80 (29) | (0.51) |
| SF-36 Emotional wellbeing | 65 (15) | 70 (15) | (0.14) |
| MFI-20 General fatigue | 40 (21) | 32 (22) | (0.03)
|
| MFI-20 Physical fatigue | 35 (23) | 34 (23) | (0.58) |
| MFI-20 Reduced motivation | 35 (18) | 30 (20) | (0.13) |
| MFI-20 Mental fatigue | 34 (20) | 31 (19) | (0.39) |
| MFI-20 Reduced activity | 29 (19) | 33 (21) | (0.47) |
| WEMBWS | 52 (7) | 54 (7) | (0.15) |
| Stress scale | 17 (4) | 19 (4) | (0.06) |
Note *—the difference of the indicators is statistically reliable, when p ≤ 0.05; **—before art activities; ***—after art activities; ****—the standard deviation.
The differences in the total scores in SF-36, MFI-20, WEMWBS and Stress subscales/scales between baseline and post–intervention in the control group.
| Title of Subscale/Scale | The Differences in the Total Scores in Subscales/Scales between Baseline ** and Post-intervention *** in the Control Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before Art Activities, | After Art Activities, | ( | |
| SF-36 Physical functioning | 83 (19) | 82 (18) | (0.98) |
| SF-36 General health | 56 (14) | 55 (13) | (0.60) |
| SF-36 Vitality/Energy | 62 (13) | 60 (16) | (0.89) |
| SF-36 Social functioning | 78 (18) | 72 (21) | (0.17) |
| SF-36 Bodily pain | 74 (23) | 71 (20) | (0.44) |
| SF-36 Role limitations (physical problems) | 84 (28) | 79 (30) | (0.54) |
| SF-36 Role limitations (emotional problems) | 86 (29) | 76 (31) | (0.20) |
| SF-36 Emotional wellbeing | 66 (17) | 61 (17) | (0.24) |
| MFI-20 General fatigue | 31 (22) | 40 (23) | (0.10) |
| MFI-20 Physical fatigue | 29 (23) | 35 (23) | (0.25) |
| MFI-20 Reduced motivation | 26 (19) | 31 (18) | (0.18) |
| MFI-20 Mental fatigue | 27 (22) | 34 (25) | (0.19) |
| MFI-20 Reduced activity | 26 (22) | 35 (25) | (0.05) * |
| WEMBWS | 53 (7) | 51 (9) | (0.14) |
| Stress scale | 19 (5) | 18 (4) | (0.43) |
Note *—the difference of the indicators is statistically reliable, when p ≤ 0.05; **—before art activities; ***—after art activities; ****—the standard deviation.
The differences in the total scores in SF-36, MFI-20, WEMWBS, and Stress subscales/scales between intervention group and control group at post-intervention.
| Title of Subscale/Scale | The Differences in the Total Scores in Subscales/Scales between Intervention Group and Control Group at Post–Intervention ** | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group, | Control Group, | ( | |
| SF-36 Physical functioning | 82 (15) | 82 (18) | (0.73) |
| SF-36 General health | 57 (15) | 55 (13) | (0.15) |
| SF-36 Vitality/Energy | 66 (14) | 60 (16) | (0.07) |
| SF-36 Social functioning | 76 (20) | 72 (21) | (0.24) |
| SF-36 Bodily pain | 73 (18) | 71 (20) | (0.43) |
| SF-36 Role limitations (physical problems) | 79 (33) | 79 (30) | (0.51) |
| SF-36 Role limitations (emotional problems) | 80 (29) | 76 (31) | (0.40) |
| SF-36 Emotional wellbeing | 70 (15) | 61 (17) | (0.00)
|
| MFI-20 General fatigue | 32 (22) | 40 (23) | (0.07) |
| MFI-20 Physical fatigue | 34 (23) | 35 (23) | (0.95) |
| MFI-20 Reduced motivation | 30 (20) | 31 (18) | (0.65) |
| MFI-20 Mental fatigue | 31 (19) | 34 (25) | (0.64) |
| MFI-20 Reduced activity | 33 (21) | 35 (25) | (0.67) |
| WEMBWS | 54 (7) | 51 (9) | (0.07) |
| Stress scale | 19 (4) | 18 (4) | (0.32) |
Note *—the difference of the indicators is statistically reliable, when p ≤ 0.05; **—after art activities; ***—the standard deviation.
Figure 1The total scores of SF-36 subscales in intervention and control groups before and after art activities. Note * and **—the difference of the indicators is statistically reliable: *—the differences in the total scores in Vitality/Energy subscale between baseline and post-intervention in the intervention group (p = 0.01); **—the differences in the total scores in Emotional well-being subscale between intervention group and control group at post-intervention (p = 0.00).
Figure 2The total scores of MFI-20, Stress scales and WEMWBS in intervention and control groups before and after art activities. Note * and **—the difference of the indicators is statistically reliable: *—the differences in the total scores in General fatigue subscale between baseline and post-intervention in the intervention group (p = 0.03); **—the differences in the total scores in Reduced activity subscale between baseline and post-intervention in the control group (p = 0.05).