Jiaying Li1, Pingdong Li2, Jieya Chen1, Liang Ruan1, Qiuxuan Zeng1, Yucui Gong2. 1. Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University Guangzhou China. 2. Nursing Department The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University Guangzhou China.
Abstract
AIM: To comprehensively assess the current level and identify associated factors of intention to response and emergency preparedness of clinical nurses during COVID-19 outbreak. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was designed. METHODS: Demographic and characteristic questionnaire, intention to response scale, emergency preparedness scale and a self-designed questionnaire related to effects of events and intention to leave were used in this study. RESULTS: The mean scores of intention to response and emergency preparedness were 82.00 (SD = 18.17) and 64.99 (SD = 12.94), respectively. Moral consideration, engaged in COVID-19 protection training, had working experience in SARS, and the other eight factors were explained 34.6% of the total model variance in intention to response model (F = 80.05, p < .001). While, the level of IR, whether the pace of work was affected and above three same factors were explained 21.5% of the total model variance (F = 91.05, p < .001). Pathway analysis revealed that moral consideration, intention to leave and impacts on work and life mediate the relationship between EP and IR.
AIM: To comprehensively assess the current level and identify associated factors of intention to response and emergency preparedness of clinical nurses during COVID-19 outbreak. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was designed. METHODS: Demographic and characteristic questionnaire, intention to response scale, emergency preparedness scale and a self-designed questionnaire related to effects of events and intention to leave were used in this study. RESULTS: The mean scores of intention to response and emergency preparedness were 82.00 (SD = 18.17) and 64.99 (SD = 12.94), respectively. Moral consideration, engaged in COVID-19 protection training, had working experience in SARS, and the other eight factors were explained 34.6% of the total model variance in intention to response model (F = 80.05, p < .001). While, the level of IR, whether the pace of work was affected and above three same factors were explained 21.5% of the total model variance (F = 91.05, p < .001). Pathway analysis revealed that moral consideration, intention to leave and impacts on work and life mediate the relationship between EP and IR.
Authors: Ali M Zaki; Sander van Boheemen; Theo M Bestebroer; Albert D M E Osterhaus; Ron A M Fouchier Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth L Daugherty; Trish M Perl; Lewis Rubinson; Andrew Bilderback; Cynthia S Rand Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jonathan Ives; Sheila Greenfield; Jayne M Parry; Heather Draper; Christine Gratus; Judith I Petts; Tom Sorell; Sue Wilson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 3.295