| Literature DB >> 29997657 |
Saeed Vaghee1, Masoud Kashani Lotfabadi2, Azam Salarhaji3, Nastaran Vaghei4, Bibi Maryam Hashemi5.
Abstract
Objective: Empathy is an important and valuable tool in therapeutic communication. Improvement barriers of empathy in psychiatric nursing education are associated with challenges, such as stress due to negative attitudes toward psychiatric disorders. The current study aimed at comparing the effects of contact-based education and commitment and acceptance-based training on empathy toward mental illnesses among nursing students. Method: In this clinical trial, 111 nursing students were selected using cluster and quota sampling methods in Mashhad, Iran. They were divided into 3 groups: (1) contact-based education (interpersonal contact among individuals with improved mental illnesses), (2) acceptance and commitment-based training, and (3) control group. The study tool was Jefferson Nurses Empathy Questionnaire, which was completed in 3 stages of pretest, posttest, and follow- up. Data were analyzed by repeated- measures ANOVA.Entities:
Keywords: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Education; Empathy; Mental Disorders; Nursing; Students
Year: 2018 PMID: 29997657 PMCID: PMC6037580
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Psychiatry ISSN: 1735-4587
Figure1The CONSORT Flow Diagram
Contact-Based Education, ACT, Mental Health Apprenticeship Course 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contact-based | First | Patient with | Expressing personal | Interviewing the | Two masters in |
| Second | Patient with | ||||
| Third | Patient with | ||||
| ACT | First | 1.acceptance | Awareness of internal | Workshop | One master in |
| 2.defusion | Not give up thoughts and | ||||
| Second | 3.self as a | Rooted meaning of stigma | |||
| 4.connection | Effective, open and non- | ||||
| Third | 5.values | Attention to what is considered | |||
| 6.responsibility | Being responsible for | ||||
| Mental health | Carried out activities during apprenticeship are as follow: | ||||
Demographic Features of Participated Nursing Students in Contact-Based Education, ACT and Control Group
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
| gender | Male | 14 (38/9) | 16 (42/1) | 20 (54/1) | 50 (45/0) | Χ2 = 1/90 |
| Female | 22 (61/1) | 22 (57/9) | 17 (45/9) | 61(55/0) | ||
| Marital status | No Married | 23 (63/9) | 26 (68/4) | 30 (81/1) | 79(71/2) | Χ2 = 2/84 |
| Married | 13 (36/1) | 12 (31/6) | 7 (18/9) | 32(28/8) | ||
|
| Urban | 33 (91/7) | 32 (84/2) | 34 (91/9) | 99(89/2) | Χ2 = 0/77 |
| Rural | 3 (8/3) | 5 (13/2) | 3 (8/1) | 11(9/9) | ||
|
| Neshapur | 7 (19/4) | 10(26/3) | 7(18/9) | 24(21/6) | Χ2= 0/86 |
| Gonabad | 14 (38/9) | 14(36/8) | 14(37/8) | 42(37/8) | ||
| Esfaraen | 7(19/4) | 7(18/4) | 8(21/6) | 22(19/8) | ||
| Sabzevar | 8(22/2) | 7(18/4) | 8(21/6) | 23(20/7) | ||
| Age | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M(SD) | df=2 | |
| 21/64 (1/02) | 22/31 ( 2/04) | 22/35 (1/36) | 22/12 (1/56) | |||
Chi-square test statistic
ANOVA test statistic
Mean and Standard Deviation of Empathy and Its Subscales in Three Studied Groups During Pre-Test, Post-Test and one Month Follow up Session
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| View | 50/19 | 54/64 | 56/30 | 51/47 | 51/71 | 52/13 | 48/86 | 48/11 | 49/03 |
| Empathic care | 41/44 | 43/55 | 45/42 | 41/63 | 43/31 | 44/60 | 39/27 | 40/16 | 40/78 |
| Putting | 11/69 | 12/64 | 13/05 | 11/84 | 12/47 | 12/81 | 11/22 | 11/32 | 11/46 |
| Total Empathy | 103/33 | 110/83 | 114/78 | 104/95 | 107/50 | 109/55 | 99/35 | 100/62 | 101/27 |
Comparing Mean Changes of Empathy and Its Subscales in Contact-Based Education, ACT and Control Group During Pre-Test, Post-Test and One Month Follow up Sessions
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| View adaptation | 4/44 | 6/11 | 1/67 | 0/24 | 0/66 | 0/42 | 0/24 | 0/16 | 0/08 | F (2,108) | ||
| Repeated | F (2,70) =162/58 | F (2,74) =8/52 | F (2,72) =0/45 | |||||||||
| Empathic care | 2/11 | 3/97 | 1/86 | 1/68 | 2/97 | 1/29 | 0/89 | 1/51 | 0/62 | F (2,108) | ||
| Repeated | F (2,70) =49/64 | F (2,74) =26/27 | F (2,72) =19/53 | |||||||||
| Putting | 0/94 | 1/36 | 0/42 | 0/63 | 0/97 | 0/34 | 0/11 | 0/24 | 0/13 | F (2,108) =7/99 | ||
| Repeated | F (2,70) =43/78 | F (2,74) =15/62 | F (2,72) =3/00 | |||||||||
| Total Empathy | 7/50 | 11/44 | 3/94 | 2/55 | 4/60 | 2/05 | 1/27 | 1/92 | 0/65 | F (2,108) | ||
| Repeated | F (2,70) =111/33 | F (2,74) =4/64 | F (2,72) =12/38 | |||||||||
The Result of Post Hoc Test for Paired Comparison with Bonferroni Correction in Terms of Empathy Mean Changes and Its Subscales During Pre-Test, Post-Test and one Month Follow up
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| View adaptation changes | <0/005 | <0/005 | 1/00 |
| Empathic care changes | 0/07 | <0/005 | 0/003 |
| Changes of putting themselves instead | 0/42 | <0/005 | 0/04 |
| Total changes of empathy | <0/005 | <0/005 | 0/005 |
| View adaptation changes | <0/005 | <0/005 | 1/00 |