| Literature DB >> 33227990 |
Rosa Cândida Carvalho Pereira Melo1, Paulo Joaquim Pina Queirós1, Luiza Hiromi Tanaka2, Liliana Vanessa Lúcio Henriques1, Hugo Leiria Neves1.
Abstract
Nursing students have difficulties interacting with cognitively impaired elders. This study aimed to identify students' difficulties in interacting with elders, the causes of the difficulties in interacting with elders, the strategies used to reduce these difficulties, and the importance attributed to the Structured Sequence of Humanitude Care Procedures (SSHCP). It also aimed to assess the contribution of the Humanitude Care Methodology (HCM) to the development of interaction skills in nursing students. An exploratory descriptive study with a quasi-experimental design was conducted with a sample of 64 nursing students during their hospital clinical training. A control group (usual training) and an experimental group (HCM training) were used. Data were collected through a questionnaire applied at baseline and follow-up. Content analysis, chi-square tests, and Student's t-tests were performed. The main difficulty identified was caring for agitated and confused elders. Difficulties were associated with a lack of theoretical-practical teaching, the clinical training context, lack of experience, and personality traits. HCM impacted positively on the development of students' interaction skills. This study shows that HCM is an innovative methodology in nursing education that will allow for moving from an instrumental and technicist education into a more humanized training capable of transforming care.Entities:
Keywords: Humanitude; humanization of assistance; interpersonal relationships; nurse–patient relations; nursing education; old age assistance; patient-centered care
Year: 2020 PMID: 33227990 PMCID: PMC7699295 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Chi-square test results for the difficulties identified by students in the experimental group (EG) and control group (CG) at baseline and follow-up.
| Students’ Difficulties | Moment of Assessment | EG | CG | Total | χ2 |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % | |||||
| Initiating communication with elders | Baseline | Yes | 10 | 31.3 | 14 | 43.8 | 24 | 37.5 | 1.067 | 0.302 |
| No | 22 | 68.8 | 18 | 56.3 | 40 | 62.5 | ||||
| Follow-up | Yes | 2 | 6.5 | 11 | 37.9 | 13 | 21.7 | 8.748 | 0.003 | |
| No | 29 | 93.5 | 18 | 62.1 | 47 | 78.3 | ||||
| Communicating with non-communicative elders | Baseline | Yes | 18 | 56.3 | 26 | 81.3 | 44 | 68.8 | 4.655 | 0.031 |
| No | 14 | 43.8 | 6 | 18.8 | 20 | 31.3 | ||||
| Follow-up | Yes | 12 | 38.7 | 18 | 62.1 | 30 | 50.0 | 3.270 | 0.071 | |
| No | 19 | 61.3 | 11 | 37.9 | 30 | 50.0 | ||||
| Communicating with elders with aphasia | Baseline | Yes | 11 | 34.4 | 18 | 56.3 | 29 | 45.3 | 3.090 | 0.079 |
| No | 21 | 65.6 | 14 | 43.8 | 35 | 54.7 | ||||
| Follow-up | Yes | 12 | 38.7 | 21 | 72.4 | 33 | 55.0 | 6.877 | 0.009 | |
| No | 19 | 61.3 | 8 | 27.6 | 27 | 45.0 | ||||
| Communicating with agitated and confused elders | Baseline | Yes | 12 | 37.5 | 23 | 71.9 | 35 | 54.7 | 7.630 | 0.006 |
| No | 20 | 62.5 | 9 | 28.1 | 29 | 45.3 | ||||
| Follow-up | Yes | 10 | 32.3 | 19 | 65.5 | 29 | 48.3 | 6.637 | 0.010 | |
| No | 21 | 67.7 | 10 | 34.5 | 31 | 51.7 | ||||
| Caring for elders who refuse care | Baseline | Yes | 7 | 21.9 | 8 | 25.0 | 15 | 23.4 | 0.087 | 0.768 |
| No | 25 | 78.1 | 24 | 75.0 | 49 | 76.6 | ||||
| Follow-up | Yes | 7 | 22.6 | 12 | 41.4 | 19 | 31.7 | 2.447 | 0.118 | |
| No | 24 | 77.4 | 17 | 58.6 | 41 | 68,3 | ||||
χ2, Chi-square test.
Causes of the difficulties experienced by EG and CG students at baseline and follow-up.
| Categories | Subcategories | Moment of Assessment | Recording Units | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG | CG | |||
| Inexperience | Lack of experience | Baseline | 12 | 7 |
| Follow-up | 11 | 9 | ||
| First contact with reality | Baseline | 7 | 6 | |
| Follow-up | 1 | 1 | ||
| Deficit in theoretical–practical teaching | Deficit of knowledge about communication | Baseline | 3 | 4 |
| Follow-up | 1 | 0 | ||
| Difference between theory and practice | Baseline | 6 | 3 | |
| Follow-up | 3 | 3 | ||
| Deficit of relational techniques training | Baseline | 11 | 1 | |
| Follow-up | 12 | 0 | ||
| Procedure focused simulation | Baseline | 3 | 2 | |
| Follow-up | 3 | 1 | ||
| Clinical training context | Deficit of Humanitude in the professionals | Baseline | 5 | 0 |
| Follow-up | 4 | 0 | ||
| Lack of respect from the professionals | Baseline | 2 | 0 | |
| Follow-up | 1 | 1 | ||
| Understaffing | Baseline | 1 | 3 | |
| Follow-up | 1 | 3 | ||
| Personal traits | Shyness | Baseline | 3 | 1 |
| Follow-up | 0 | 3 | ||
| Lack of self-confidence | Baseline | 1 | 7 | |
| Follow-up | 1 | 5 | ||
| Anxiety | Baseline | 1 | 2 | |
| Follow-up | 1 | 1 | ||
| Fear | Baseline | 2 | 9 | |
| Follow-up | 0 | 2 | ||
| Total | 96 | 74 | ||
Strategies used by EG and CG students to reduce difficulties at baseline and follow-up.
| Categories | Subcategories | Moment of Assessment | Recording Units | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG | CG | |||
| Application of the HCM | Knowledge of the elders | Baseline | 3 | 0 |
| Follow-up | 1 | 0 | ||
| Humanitude Pillars | Baseline | 12 | 0 | |
| Follow-up | 4 | 0 | ||
| Technical–relational procedures | Baseline | 6 | 0 | |
| Follow-up | 13 | 0 | ||
| Training/education | Training in “Caring with Humanitude” | Baseline | 4 | 0 |
| Follow-up | 6 | 0 | ||
| Self-training | Baseline | 3 | 5 | |
| Follow-up | 4 | 3 | ||
| Relational techniques training | Baseline | 8 | 5 | |
| Follow-up | 5 | 5 | ||
| Practical context | Baseline | 2 | 1 | |
| Follow-up | 0 | 0 | ||
| Development of personal skills | Self-confidence | Baseline | 2 | 4 |
| Follow-up | 3 | 1 | ||
| Emotional management | Baseline | 1 | 2 | |
| Follow-up | 1 | 0 | ||
| Persistence | Baseline | 0 | 0 | |
| Follow-up | 2 | 1 | ||
| Total | 80 | 27 | ||
HCM, Humanitude care methodology.
Results of the Student’s t-test for independent samples regarding the importance attributed to the Structured Sequence of Humanitude Care Procedures (SSHCP) dimensions by CG and EG students at baseline and follow-up.
| SSHCP Dimensions | Moment of Assessment | Groups |
| Mean | SD | t |
| ES | ES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% CI | ||||||||||
| Pre-preliminaries | Baseline | EG | 32 | 3.59 | 0.42 | 3.384 a | 0.001 | 0.853 b | 0.333 | 1.366 |
| CG | 31 | 3.20 | 0.49 | |||||||
| Follow-up | EG | 30 | 3.68 | 0.38 | 1.483 a | 0.144 | 0.390 b | −0.132 | 0.908 | |
| CG | 28 | 3.53 | 0.42 | |||||||
| Preliminaries | Baseline | EG | 32 | 3.65 | 0.31 | 2.655 a | 0.010 | 0.669 b | 0.159 | 1.174 |
| CG | 31 | 3.45 | 0.28 | |||||||
| Follow-up | EG | 30 | 3.76 | 0.21 | 2.594 a | 0.012 | 0.682 b | 0.149 | 1.209 | |
| CG | 28 | 3.60 | 0.27 | |||||||
| Sensory circle | Baseline | EG | 30 | 3.64 | 0.36 | 1.028 a | 0.308 | 0.268 b | −0.246 | 0.779 |
| CG | 29 | 3.54 | 0.38 | |||||||
| Follow-up | EG | 29 | 3.72 | 0.28 | 1.798 a | 0.078 | 0.472 b | −0.052 | 0.992 | |
| CG | 29 | 3.57 | 0.35 | |||||||
| Emotional consolidation | Baseline | EG | 32 | 3.69 | 0.46 | 0.661 a | 0.511 | 0.167 b | −0.329 | 0.661 |
| CG | 31 | 3.61 | 0.44 | |||||||
| Follow-up | EG | 30 | 3.77 | 0.34 | 1.822 a | 0.074 | 0.474 b | −0.045 | 0.990 | |
| CG | 29 | 3.60 | 0.37 | |||||||
| Appointment | Baseline | EG | 32 | 3.70 | 0.42 | 3.034 a | 0.004 | 0.759 b | 0.248 | 1.263 |
| CG | 32 | 3.35 | 0.49 | |||||||
| Follow-up | EG | 30 | 3.80 | 0.30 | 2.460 a | 0.018 | 0.647 b | 0.121 | 1.169 | |
| CG | 29 | 3.49 | 0.60 | |||||||
SD, standard deviation; ES, effect size; CI, confidence interval; n, number of participants; a independent t-test, significant at α = 0.05 (two-tailed); b Cohen’s d.