| Literature DB >> 33746432 |
Mohammad Hosein Fadaei1, Mahya Torkaman2, Naval Heydari2, Maryam Kamali3, Fariba Ghodsbin4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nurses working in the intensive care units (ICU) are faced with numerous stressors that can pose a serious threat to their self-efficacy and affect the quality of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) on the ICU nurses' occupational stress.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT); group therapy; intensive care unit; nurses; occupational stress
Year: 2020 PMID: 33746432 PMCID: PMC7962512 DOI: 10.4103/ijoem.IJOEM_286_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Occup Environ Med ISSN: 0973-2284
Contents of the cognitive behavioral therapy course
| Session purpose | Agenda/content | Homework |
|---|---|---|
| Building alliance to the group | Perception of stress | “What is stress?” |
| Psycho-education | Psycho-education on stress, cognitive models, structure of the therapy | “What is group CBT”? |
| Motivate the Nurse | ||
| Socializing the Nurse | ||
| Goal setting | Collaboratively setting treatment goals | Problem list |
| Activating the nurse | The features of the concept | “The events that recently felt the stress” |
| Identifying mood and automatic thoughts | Dysfunctional thought record | “How to identify your moods and thoughts” |
| Testing automatic thoughts | Dysfunctional thought record | “How to balance your thoughts” |
| To enhance the ability to solve problems | It leads to the solution by using a problem-solving technique | Try the solutions to problems. |
| Set up an action plan towards the goal | Create an action plan to achieve the goal. | The execution of the action plan |
Comparison of the pre-test and post-test results between the intervention and control groups
| Variables | Groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study ( | Control ( | |||
| Total stress | Before | 193.58±12.08 | 195.13±11.84 | 0.47 |
| After | 145.86±9.36 | 198.21±12.26 | <0.001 | |
| <0.001 | 0.74 | |||
| Role workload | Before | 36.86±3.89 | 37.36±3.36 | 0.45 |
| After | 23±2.52 | 39.18±3.49 | <0.001 | |
| <0.001 | 0.052 | |||
| Insufficiency of role | Before | 31.40±3.28 | 31.38±3.16 | 0.97 |
| After | 25.20±2.66 | 31.48±3.28 | <0.001 | |
| <0.001 | 0.15 | |||
| Role duality | Before | 31±4.76 | 31.15±4.77 | 0.86 |
| After | 22.06±3.43 | 32.05±4.87 | <0.001 | |
| <0.001 | 0.058 | |||
| Range of roles | Before | 3.16±3.61 | 30.48±3.73 | 0.63 |
| After | 20.73±3.32 | 30.66±3.82 | <0.001 | |
| <0.001 | 0.08 | |||
| Responsibility | Before | 31.66±3.35 | 31.90±3.42 | 0.70 |
| After | 24.95±4.16 | 31.96±3.46 | <0.001 | |
| <0.001 | 0.32 | |||
| Physical environment insufficiency of role | Before | 32.48±3.89 | 32.85±3.50 | 0.58 |
| After | 32.55±4.01 | 32.86±3.51 | 0.64 | |
| 0.32 | 0.32 | |||
Data were presented as mean±sd. Independent samples t-test, and paired-samples t-test were used., The level of significance was set at 5%.