| Literature DB >> 28592922 |
Yohei Nakamura1, Naoki Yoshinaga2, Hiroki Tanoue3, Sayaka Kato4, Sayoko Nakamura5, Keiko Aoishi3, Yuko Shiraishi6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective communication has a great impact on nurses' job satisfaction, team relationships, as well as patient care/safety. Previous studies have highlighted the various beneficial effects of enhancing communication through assertiveness training programs for nurses. However, most programs take a long time to implement; thus, briefer programs are urgently required for universal on-the-job-training in the workplace. The purpose of this feasibility study was to develop and evaluate a modified brief assertiveness training program (with cognitive techniques) for nurses in the workplace.Entities:
Keywords: Assertiveness; Assertiveness training; Education; Nurse; Workplace
Year: 2017 PMID: 28592922 PMCID: PMC5461750 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-017-0224-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nurs ISSN: 1472-6955
Overview of the training program
| Session | Theme | Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction | · Making groups (three members per group) |
| What is assertive | · Teaching what assertiveness is, the right to assert oneself, and communication patterns | |
| How to communicate assertively | · Teaching skills necessary for assertive communication | |
| Making requests | · Using assertive skills (making requests through role-play). | |
| Reviewing and setting an action plan | · Reviewing and summarizing the day’s session | |
| 2 | Reviewing previous session | · Reviewing what we have learned in the previous session. |
| Improving cognitive flexibility (restructuring dysfunctional thoughts) | · Using cognitive restructuring technique (Thought Challenging Record) to replace stress-inducing thought with more accurate, balanced, and less rigid thinking. | |
| Declining requests | · Using assertive skills (declining requests through role-play). | |
| Giving and receiving praise | · Using assertive skills (giving and receiving praise through role-play). | |
| Reviewing and setting action plan | · Reviewing and summarizing the day’s session |
Fig. 1Participants’ flow diagram
Baseline characteristics of participants (n = 22)
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Gender, n (%) | |
| Male | 5 (22.7) |
| Female | 17 (77.3) |
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 37.8 (13.5) |
| Certification, n (%) | |
| Registered nurse | 18 (81.8) |
| Assistant nurse | 4 (18.1) |
| Position, staff nurse, n (%) | 13 (59.1) |
| Highest educational background | |
| High school | 2 (9.1) |
| < 3 years of college/university | 18 (81.8) |
| ≥ 3 years of college/university | 2 (9.1) |
| Work experience as a nurse, years, mean (SD) | |
| Total | 13.5 (13.3) |
| Current workplace | 2.4 (3.9) |
Comparison of pre- and post-intervention scores of outcome measures
| Measures | Baseline (Pre) | 1-month (Post) | Difference | t | p | ES‡ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | Mean | (SD) | ||||
| RAS (primary outcome) | −12.9 | (17.2) | −8.6 | (18.6) | −4.3 | (7.4) | −2.7 | 0.01* | 0.24 |
| BFNE | 39.1 | (7.0) | 39.1 | (6.8) | 0.0 | (4.1) | 0.0 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| BJSQ | |||||||||
| Job-stressors | 39.6 | (4.9) | 40.2 | (4.4) | −0.59 | (2.8) | 1.00 | 0.33 | −0.13 |
| Psychological distress | 37.4 | (8.1) | 37.1 | (8.2) | 0.32 | (3.9) | 0.38 | 0.71 | 0.04 |
| Physical distress | 19.5 | (7.0) | 18.7 | (5.9) | 0.82 | (3.4) | 1.11 | 0.28 | 0.13 |
| Worksite support | 19.0 | (3.8) | 18.4 | (4.7) | 0.59 | (2.6) | 1.07 | 0.30 | 0.14 |
| Satisfaction | 4.5 | (1.2) | 4.4 | (1.3) | 0.45 | (0.79) | 0.27 | 0.79 | 0.04 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, higher scores indicate greater severity or distress. categorize as small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), and large (≥ 0.80). Abbreviation: RAS, Rathus Assertiveness Schedule; BFNE, Brief Version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; BJSQ, Brief Job Stress Questionnaire; ES, Effect Size