| Literature DB >> 33078054 |
Abstract
Compassion fatigue has been documented in the nursing and allied health literature as an emerging issue for health professionals. Little is known regarding the experience of compassion fatigue in undergraduate, pre-licensure students entering health care professions. This study used Walker and Avant's concept analysis methodology to explain antecedents, attributes, and consequences of compassion fatigue in undergraduate, pre-licensure students. Exploration of the published literature from January 1992-April 2020 occurred using systematic review criteria based on the Joanna Briggs Institute. Findings revealed three antecedents that included: Coping Ability; Self-Efficacy; and Clinical and Occupational Hazards. Three defining attributes of compassion fatigue included: Psychological Stress; Witnessing Negative Experiences of Others; and Depression. Consequences included: Decreased Well-Being; and Program Withdrawal and Intention-to-Leave. The results offer new perspectives and opportunities for research in pre-licensure health studies undergraduate students expected to uphold the values of their professional program prior to entry into the workforce. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.Entities:
Keywords: Baccalaureate students; Burnout; Compassion fatigue; Comprehensive literature review; Concept analysis; Pre-licensure students; Secondary traumatic stress
Year: 2020 PMID: 33078054 PMCID: PMC7558253 DOI: 10.1007/s12144-020-01122-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Psychol ISSN: 1046-1310
Fig. 1Professional Quality of Life Theoretical Model
(The Centre for the Victims of Torture 2019)
Search strings
| CINAHL (EBSCOhost) | |
| (MM “Burnout, Professional” OR “Compassion Fatigue”) AND (MM “Students, Nursing” OR “Students, Nurse Midwifery” OR “Students, Nursing, Associate” OR “Students, Nursing, Baccalaureate” OR “Students, Post-RN” OR “Students, Nursing, Diploma Programs” OR “Students, Nursing, Graduate” OR “Students, Nursing, Doctoral” OR “Students, Nursing, Masters” OR “Students, Nursing, Male” OR “Students, Allied Health” OR “Students, Athletic Training” OR “Students, Audiology” OR “Students, Dental Hygiene” OR “Students, Dietetics” OR “Students, Medical Technology” OR “Students, Occupational Therapy” OR “Students, Physical Therapy” OR “Students, Physician Assistant” OR “Students, Radiologic Technology” OR “Students, Respiratory Therapy” OR “Students, Social Work” OR “Students, Speech-Language Pathology” OR “Students, Chiropractic” OR “Students, Dental” OR “Students, Medical” OR “Students, Midwifery” OR “Students, Nursing” OR “Students, Nursing, Practical” OR “Students, Pharmacy” OR “Students, Podiatry”) | |
| PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) | |
| (MM “College Students” OR MM “Community College Students” OR MM “Education Students” OR MM “Junior College Students” OR MM “Nursing Students” OR MM “ROTC Students”) AND (MM “Occupational Stress” OR MM “Compassion Fatigue”) | |
| PubMed (includes Medline) | |
| (“students”[MeSH Terms] OR “students”[All Fields]) AND (“health occupations”[MeSH Terms] OR (“health”[All Fields] AND “occupations”[All Fields]) OR “health occupations”[All Fields]))) AND (((“burnout, psychological”[MeSH Terms] OR (“burnout”[All Fields] AND “psychological”[All Fields]) OR “psychological burnout”[All Fields] OR “burnout”[All Fields]) AND professional[All Fields]) OR (“compassion fatigue”[MeSH Terms] OR (“compassion”[All Fields] AND “fatigue”[All Fields]) OR “compassion fatigue”[All Fields])) | |
| ERIC (EBSCOhost) | |
| (DE “College Students” OR DE “Community College Students” OR DE “Education Students” OR DE “Junior College Students” OR DE “Nursing Students” OR DE “ROTC Students” OR DE “Undergraduate Students” OR DE “Premedical Students”) AND burnout |
Fig. 2PRISMA Flow Diagram of Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) Studies
Results for peer reviewed studies with undergraduate, pre-licensure students January 1992–April 2020.
Appraisal of Cross-Sectional Studies (n = 10)
| Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beaumont et al. | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 63 |
| Flinton et al. | N | N | U | Y | N | N | Y | U | 25 |
| Kinker et al. | Y | N | U | U | N | U | U | U | 13 |
| Lin and Lin | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 |
| Lin et al. | Y | N | U | U | Y | Y | N | Y | 50 |
| Lin et al. | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 88 |
| * Mason | Y | N | Y | Y | N | U | Y | Y | 63 |
| McArthur et al. | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | 88 |
| * Michalec et al. | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 75 |
| * Rees et al. | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | U | Y | Y | 75 |
Notes: * Indicates specific to undergraduate nursing students. Criterion met - Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear
Q1: Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
Q2: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Q3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
Q4: Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
Q5: Were confounding factors identified?
Q6: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
Q7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
Q8: Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Appraisal of Prevalence Studies (n = 2)
| Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * Mason and Nel | Y | U | U | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | 56 |
| * Mathias and Wentzel | Y | Y | U | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 88 |
Notes: * Indicates specific to undergraduate nursing students. Criterion met - Y=Yes, N=No, U=Unclear
Q1: Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?
Q2: Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?
Q3: Was the sample size adequate?
Q4: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Q5: Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
Q6: Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?
Q7: Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
Q8: Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
Q9: Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?
Studies of Compassion Fatigue in Undergraduate, Pre-Licensure Students
| Author(s); Design | Education Context; | Main Results |
|---|---|---|
Beaumont et al. ( Cross-Sectional Study | Student midwives England ( | Contributors to burnout included: High self-judgment; less compassionate toward others |
Lin and Lin ( Cross-Sectional/Cohort Study | Medical students Taiwan ( | Contributors to burnout included: High psychological and physical demands; male gender; younger age |
Lin et al. ( Cross-Sectional/Cohort Study | Medical students Taiwan ( | Contributors to burnout included: Male gender; younger age; poor self-esteem; and decreased sense of control |
Mason ( Cross-Sectional Study | Nursing students South Africa ( | |
Mason and Nel ( Prevalence Study | Nursing students South Africa ( | −63.75% of total sample presented with moderate to high risk for burnout |
Mathias and Wentzel ( Prevalence Study | Nursing students in 3rd & 4th years of study South Africa ( | −94% of sample presented with moderate risk for burnout −95.5% reported average levels of compassion satisfaction |
McArthur et al. ( Cross-Sectional Survey/ Prevalence Study | Veterinary students Australia ( | −30% at high risk of burnout −24% at high risk of secondary traumatic stress −21% reported low compassion satisfaction -Secondary traumatic stress is positively correlated to burnout |
Michalec et al. ( Cross-Sectional Study (with mixed method component) | Nursing students United States of America ( | -1st year students reported significantly lower levels of burnout compared to 2nd year students -3rd year students reported significantly higher levels of emotional exhaustion compared to 1st years |
Rees et al. ( Cross-Sectional Survey | Nursing students Australia & Canada ( |
Fig. 3Conceptual Synthesis Map of Compassion Fatigue