| Literature DB >> 34886316 |
Mariusz Panczyk1, Lucyna Iwanow1, Szymon Musik1, Dominik Wawrzuta1, Joanna Gotlib1, Mariusz Jaworski1.
Abstract
Decision making using evidence-based practice (EBP) is generally universally accepted by nurses. Such acceptance may affect the personnel's behaviour towards patients, which is also demonstrated by taking into consideration the patient's preferences, including the patient's spiritual needs, in the care plan. The provision of such care requires the development of an attitude of approval and an adequate level of communicative competence, which will enable the actual implementation of the EBP. The purpose of our study was to assess the perception of spirituality and the nurse's role in providing spiritual care, as well as the perception of the significance of communication skills in the approval of EBP in professional practice. A multi-centre cross-section study was conducted on a population of 1176 participants (459 undergraduate (bachelor's programme, BP) and 717 postgraduate students (master's programme, MP)) from 10 medical universities in Poland. Three tools were used in the study to evaluate the participants' approach: Evidence-Based Practice Competence Questionnaire (EBP-COQ), The Spirituality and Spiritual Care Rating Scale (SSCRS), and Communication Skills Attitude Scale (CSAS). Structural equation modelling was used for the analysis. An analysis of structural equations revealed the presence of positive relationships of the attitude to spiritual care and the role of communicative competences with the approach to EBP regardless of the cohort. A significant difference was found related to the influence of age on the attitude towards learning communicative competences. The approval in this respect was observed to decrease with age in the MP group. Increasing approval of EBP requires strengthening the approach to activity-centred spiritual care, with the simultaneous development of a positive attitude towards learning communicative competences. The model reveals the need to integrate a humanistic approach with EBP, which can be achieved by planning different interventions in different groups of recipients: nurses, academic teachers and students.Entities:
Keywords: communication skills; evidence-based practice; path analysis; spiritual care
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34886316 PMCID: PMC8672274 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The theoretical model of the relationship between the tested variables (H—hypothesis).
Figure 2The formal form of the structural equation model. BP—bachelor’s programme, MP—master’s programme, EBP—attitude towards evidence-based nursing practice, CSAS—attitude towards learning communicative competences, ACSC—activity-centred spiritual care.
Participant characteristics.
| Total | Bachelor’s Programme | Master’s Programme | χ2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % | |||
| Nursing School | ||||||||
| Medical University of Bialystok | 162 | 13.8 | 16 | 3.4 | 147 | 20.5 | 158.4 | <0.001 |
| Medical University of Lublin | 141 | 12.0 | 83 | 18.1 | 58 | 8.1 | ||
| Jagiellonian University Medical College | 211 | 17.9 | 92 | 20.1 | 118 | 16.5 | ||
| Poznan University of Medical Sciences | 171 | 14.5 | 70 | 15.2 | 101 | 14.1 | ||
| Medical University of Lodz | 194 | 16.5 | 112 | 24.4 | 82 | 11.4 | ||
| Medical University of Silesia | 79 | 6.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 79 | 11.0 | ||
| Medical University of Warsaw | 219 | 18.6 | 87 | 18.9 | 132 | 18.4 | ||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Female | 1104 | 93.9 | 425 | 92.6 | 679 | 94.7 | 2.163 | 0.141 |
| Male | 72 | 6.1 | 34 | 7.4 | 38 | 5.3 | ||
| Place of residence | ||||||||
| Countryside | 309 | 26.3 | 190 | 41.3 | 119 | 16.7 | 100.4 | <0.001 |
| Village (population up to 50 thousand) | 180 | 15.3 | 64 | 14.0 | 116 | 16.1 | ||
| Small town (51–200 thousand inhabitants) | 144 | 12.3 | 33 | 7.2 | 111 | 15.5 | ||
| Large town (201–500 thousand inhabitants) | 190 | 16.2 | 47 | 10.3 | 143 | 19.9 | ||
| City >500 thousand inhabitants | 353 | 30.0 | 125 | 27.2 | 228 | 31.8 | ||
| Spiritual care training | ||||||||
| No | 365 | 31.1 | 168 | 36.7 | 197 | 27.5 | 10.888 | 0.001 |
| Yes | 811 | 68.9 | 291 | 63.3 | 520 | 72.5 | ||
| EBP training | ||||||||
| No | 1105 | 94.0 | 431 | 94.0 | 674 | 94.0 | 0.005 | 0.942 |
| Yes | 71 | 6.0 | 28 | 6.0 | 43 | 6.0 | ||
| Communication skills training | ||||||||
| No | 960 | 81.6 | 374 | 81.4 | 586 | 81.7 | 0.012 | 0.915 |
| Yes | 216 | 18.4 | 85 | 18.6 | 131 | 18.3 | ||
* Chi-squared test.
Comparison of two study groups in terms of variables.
| Variable | Bachelor’s Programme | Master’s Programme |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | ||||
| Attitude Towards Evidence-Based Nursing Practice | 47.65 | 7.22 | 49.34 | 7.28 | 3.891 | <0.001 | 0.23 |
| Attitude Towards Learning Communicative Competences | 83.61 | 13.03 | 87.48 | 12.67 | 5.050 | <0.001 | 0.30 |
| Activity-Centred Spiritual Care | 33.71 | 9.15 | 34.79 | 8.47 | 2.064 | 0.039 | 0.12 |
M—mean, SD—standard deviation, CI—confidence interval. * Student’s t test. ** Cohen’s d coefficient.
Standardised regression weights and test invariance across groups.
| Construct/Hypothesis | Bachelor’s Programme | Master’s Programme | CMIN | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | SE | CR | Estimate | SE | CR | |||||
| ACSC → CSAS (H1) | 0.347 | 0.041 | 8.47 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.035 | 4.56 | 0.000 | 9.643 | 0.002 |
| CSAS → EBP (H2) | 0.327 | 0.042 | 7.85 | 0.000 | 0.332 | 0.033 | 9.98 | 0.000 | 0.086 | 0.769 |
| Age → CSAS (H3) | 0.037 | 0.044 | 0.84 | 0.398 | 0.255 | 0.030 | 7.41 | 0.000 | 1.177 | 0.278 |
| Age ↔ ACSC (H4) | −0.01 | 0.047 | −0.21 | 0.834 | 0.071 | 0.037 | 1.91 | 0.057 | 3.260 | 0.071 |
SE—standard error, CR—critical ratio, EBP—attitude towards evidence-based nursing practice, CSAS—attitude towards learning communicative competences, ACSC—activity-centred spiritual care test invariance across groups, H—hypothesis.
Figure 3Pathway diagram for BP group (above) and MP group (below). Correlations between independent variables are represented with a double-sided arrow. Direct effects are represented with a one-sided arrow. The numbers above the arrow indicate the value of standardised regression weights. The numbers before the arrow show residual variances. The asterisk (*) mark stands for standard regression weights, meaning the p value is under 0.05.