| Literature DB >> 34857563 |
Lena Izabela Serafin1, Maja Fukowska2, Diana Zyskowska2, Justyna Olechowska2, Bożena Czarkowska-Pączek2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine to what degree particular coping strategies mediate the association between stress and insomnia in novice nurses who are employed while continuing their education and how type of education moderate the relationships between workplace stress, coping strategies and insomnia.Entities:
Keywords: education & training (see medical education & training); health & safety; occupational & industrial medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34857563 PMCID: PMC8640655 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Sample characteristics
| N (%) | Mean (SD) | |
| Age | 24.16 (2.005) | |
| Seniority (months) | 12.57 (9.571) | |
| Working hours/month | 155.92 (34.66) | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 9 (5.7) | |
| Female | 150 (94.3) | |
| Type of MDP | ||
| Full time course | 130 (81.8) | |
| Part time course | 29 (18.2) |
MDP, Master Degree Programme.
Differences in the levels of insomnia and workplace stress between respondents who completed the questionnaire before the COVID-19 epidemic and during the COVID-19 epidemic
| Before epidemic COVID-19 (n=82) | During epidemic COVID-19 (n=77) | T | P value | 95% CI | Cohen’s d | ||||
| M | SD | M | SD | LL | UL | ||||
| Insomnia | 8.91 | 4.33 | 7.68 | 4.46 | 1.78 | 0.077 | −0.14 | 2.62 | 0.28 |
| Workplace stress | 19.41 | 5.86 | 19.69 | 5.35 | −0.31 | 0.759 | −2.03 | 1.49 | 0.05 |
Cohen’s d, effect size; Cohen’s d, effect size; LL, lower level; t, t-test result; UL, upper level.
Hierarchical linear regression analysis for insomnia prediction
| Predictors | B | SE | β | T | P value | 95% CI of B | R2 | ∆R2 | ||
| LL | UL | |||||||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 4.71 | 1.21 | 3.89 | <0.001 | 2.32 | 7.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 | |
| Workplace stress | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 3.03 | 0.003 | 0.06 | 0.30 | |||
| 2 | (Constant) | 5.11 | 2.49 | 2.05 | 0.042 | 0.19 | 10.03 | 0.23 | 0.18*** | |
| Workplace stress | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.51 | 0.612 | −0.10 | 0.16 | |||
| Active coping | 0.04 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.957 | −1.39 | 1.46 | |||
| Planning | 0.45 | 0.63 | 0.07 | 0.71 | 0.481 | −0.80 | 1.69 | |||
| Positive reframing | −0.20 | 0.55 | −0.03 | −0.37 | 0.711 | −1.29 | 0.88 | |||
| Acceptance | 1.41 | 0.53 | 0.21 | 2.66 | 0.009 | 0.36 | 2.45 | |||
| Humour | 0.78 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 1.45 | 0.151 | −0.29 | 1.84 | |||
| Religion | 0.09 | 0.33 | 0.02 | 0.26 | 0.797 | −0.57 | 0.74 | |||
| Use of emotional support | −1.47 | 0.63 | −0.28 | −2.33 | 0.021 | −2.72 | −0.22 | |||
| Use of instrumental support | −0.08 | 0.67 | −0.02 | −0.12 | 0.904 | −1.41 | 1.25 | |||
| Self-distraction | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.08 | 0.97 | 0.333 | −0.51 | 1.48 | |||
| Denial | 0.99 | 0.46 | 0.19 | 2.16 | 0.032 | 0.08 | 1.89 | |||
| Venting | −1.77 | 0.62 | −0.25 | −2.83 | 0.005 | −3.00 | −0.53 | |||
| Substance use | −0.22 | 0.45 | −0.04 | −0.49 | 0.623 | −1.12 | 0.67 | |||
| Behavioural disengagement | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.11 | 1.18 | 0.242 | −0.48 | 1.90 | |||
| Self-blame | 1.43 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 3.49 | 0.001 | 0.62 | 2.25 | |||
*** - p < 0.001
B, unstandardised regression coefficient; LL, lower level; R2, coefficient of determination; ∆R2, delta coefficient of determination; t, t-statistic; UL, upper level; β, standardised regression coefficient.
Interaction effects for moderation models of the type of MDP for the relationship between work stress, coping strategies and insomnia
| Interaction | SE | T | P value | 95% CI for B | |
| LL | UL | ||||
| Workplace stress*type of MDP | 0.09 | −0.94 | 0.348 | −0.25 | 0.09 |
| Active coping*type of MDP (model 1) | 0.73 | 2.35 | 0.020 | 0.28 | 3.17 |
| Planning*type of MDP | 0.70 | 0.59 | 0.553 | −0.96 | 1.79 |
| Positive reframing*type of MDP | 0.57 | −0.77 | 0.442 | −1.57 | 0.69 |
| Acceptance*type of MDP | 0.76 | −1.51 | 0.068 | −2.89 | 0.10 |
| Humour*type of MDP | 0.77 | −0.22 | 0.828 | −1.69 | 1.35 |
| Religion*type of s MDP (model 3) | 0.42 | −2.25 | 0.026 | −1.76 | −0.12 |
| Use of emotional support*type of MDP | 0.52 | 0.97 | 0.335 | −0.52 | 1.53 |
| Use of instrumental support*type of MDP | 0.56 | 0.90 | 0.372 | −0.61 | 1.61 |
| Self-distraction*type of MDP (model 2) | 0.59 | 2.21 | 0.028 | 0.14 | 2.48 |
| Denial*type of MDP | 0.47 | 0.30 | 0.768 | −0.79 | 1.07 |
| Venting*type of MDP | 0.68 | 1.34 | 0.181 | −0.43 | 2.24 |
| Substance use*type of MDP | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.484 | −0.90 | 1.88 |
| Behavioural disengagement*type of MDP | 0.80 | −1.30 | 0.197 | −2.63 | 0.55 |
| Self-blame*type of MDP | 0.52 | 0.61 | 0.541 | −0.71 | 1.34 |
* interaction between strategy and type of MDP
B, unstandardised regression coefficient; LL, lower level; MDP, Master Degree Programme; t, t-statistic; UL, upper level.