| Literature DB >> 35172082 |
Eun-Ju Yun1, Tae-Im Kim2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of an educational program on developmental positioning (EPDP) for nurses in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).Entities:
Keywords: Education; Infants, premature; Intensive care unit, neonatal; Nurses; Patient positioning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35172082 PMCID: PMC8858784 DOI: 10.4094/chnr.2022.28.1.70
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Child Health Nurs Res ISSN: 2287-9110
The Content of an Educational Program on Developmental Positioning
| Categories | 1st Session | 2nd Session | 3rd Session |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theme | •Neurobehavioral development of the fetus vs. preterm infants | •Basic principles and methods of DP for preterm infants | •Perform DP practice |
| Goal | •Understand and explain the necessity and significance of DP for preterm infants | •Understand and explain the basic principles and methods of DP for preterm infants | •Participants can perform DP correctly according to the situation of preterm infants |
| Introduction | •Ice-breaking | •Chanting slogans! | •Chanting slogans! |
| •Introduce EPDP | •Share participants' DP experience | •Share participants' DP experience | |
| •Show a preterm infant's case photography (1): express and share participant's thoughts and feelings with brainwriting | •Introduce today's class activities | •Introduce today's class activities | |
| Development | •Neurobehavioral development of the fetus vs. preterm infants | •Basic principles of DP | •Perform and hands-on practice of DP with a doll |
| •Understand the infant's cues | •Introduce DP aids | ||
| •Complications due to improper positioning of preterm infants | •Method of DP by posture and body parts of preterm infants | ||
| •Definition and significance of DP | |||
| Ending | •Show a preterm infant's case photography (1) again: express and share participants' thoughts and feelings | •Show a preterm infant's case photography (2): discuss with each other about what's right or what's wrong | •Share participants' thoughts and feelings about what changed after 3 weeks of the EPDP |
| •Inform participants about the next class's activities | •Inform participants about the next class's activities | •Chanting slogans! | |
| •Chanting slogans! | •Chanting slogans! | ||
| Methods & tools | •Lecture, brainwriting, public commitment | •Lecture, brainwriting, public commitment | |
| •Audio-visual materials, booklets, photographs, post-it, pencils, DP posters | •Hands-on practice | ||
| •Baby positioning mat, gel positioning aids, Bendy Bumper | •Audio-visual materials, booklet, post-it, pencil, DP posters | ||
| •Baby positioning mat, gel positioning aids, Bendy Bumper | |||
| IMB strategy | INF, PM, SM, BS | INF, PM, SM, BS | INF, PM, SM, BS |
| Time | 100 minutes | 100 minutes | 100 minutes |
BS, behavioral skills; DP, developmental positioning; EPDP, educational program on developmental positioning; IMB, information-motivationbehavioral skills; INF, information; PM, personal motivation; SM, social motivation.
Figure 1.The conceptual framework of the research. *The EPDP was conducted for 7 weeks (3 session of education and practice for three weeks; encouraging DP messages using SNS were provided for four weeks after three sessions of DP education and practice; DP posters and DP aids were provided during the intervention periods). DP, developmental positioning; EPDP, educational program on developmental positioning; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; PPT, PowerPoint; SNS, social network service.
Homogeneity Tests of the General and DP-related Characteristics of the Participants and Outcome Variables of the Two Groups at Baseline (N=60)
| Variables | Categories | Total (N=60) | Int. (n=30) | Cont. (n=30) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) or M±SD | n (%) or M±SD | n (%) or M±SD | ||||
| Age (year) | ≤25 | 33 (55.0) | 18 (60.0) | 15 (50.0) | 1.49 | .474 |
| 26-30 | 14 (23.3) | 5 (16.7) | 9 (30.0) | |||
| ≥31 | 13 (21.7) | 7 (23.3) | 6 (20.0) | |||
| 27.2±5.2 | 26.9±5.0 | 27.5±5.5 | 0.42 | .676 | ||
| Education | Junior college | 8 (13.3) | 4 (13.3) | 4 (13.3) | .710[ | |
| ≥University | 52 (86.7) | 26 (86.7) | 26 (86.7) | |||
| Marital status | Married | 9 (15.0) | 3 (10.0) | 6 (20.0) | 1.08 | .282 |
| Unmarried | 51 (85.0) | 27 (90.0) | 24 (80.0) | |||
| NICU work experience (month) | <24 | 31 (51.7) | 18 (60.0) | 13 (43.4) | 2.47 | .290 |
| 25-48 | 15 (25.0) | 5 (16.7) | 10 (33.3) | |||
| ≥49 | 14 (23.3) | 7 (23.3) | 7 (23.3) | |||
| 49.4±45.8 | 45.0±43.0 | 53.8±48.7 | 0.04 | .975 | ||
| Job status | Staff nurse | 55 (91.7) | 27 (90.0) | 28 (93.4) | .098[ | |
| ≥Charge nurse | 5 (8.3) | 3 (10.0) | 2 (6.6) | |||
| Route of DP knowledge acquisition[ | In-service education | 18 (34.0) | 7 (25.9) | 11 (42.3) | - | - |
| Internet | 16 (30.2) | 9 (33.4) | 7 (26.9) | |||
| Clinical conference | 6 (11.3) | 2 (7.4) | 4 (15.4) | |||
| Books | 5 (9.4) | 3 (11.1) | 2 (7.7) | |||
| Senior nurse | 5 (9.4) | 3 (11.1) | 2 (7.7) | |||
| None | 3 (5.7) | 3 (11.1) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Importance of DP | 4.28±0.55 | 4.20±0.48 | 4.37±0.62 | 1.17 | .248 | |
| Barriers to implementing DP | Work overload | 21 (35.0) | 13 (43.3) | 8 (26.7) | - | - |
| Lack of awareness of DP | 12 (20.0) | 6 (20.0) | 6 (20.0) | |||
| Lack of DP education | 11 (18.3) | 7 (23.3) | 4 (13.3) | |||
| Lack of position support aids | 7 (11.7) | 2 (6.7) | 5 (16.7) | |||
| Concerns about missing tubes and lines | 5 (8.3) | 2 (6.7) | 3 (10.0) | |||
| Inadequate staffing | 4 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (13.3) | |||
| DP knowledge | 24.15±3.52 | 24.20±3.75 | 24.10±3.90 | 0.10 | .920 | |
| Attitudes towards DP | 29.53±3.48 | 29.40±2.77 | 29.66±4.11 | 2.29 | .770 | |
| DP self-efficacy | 75.58±7.94 | 77.26±7.96 | 73.90±7.68 | 1.67 | .101 | |
| DP performance | 76.38±6.86 | 75.20±6.17 | 77.56±7.39 | 1.35 | .184 | |
| IPAT score | 5.08±1.63 | 5.07±1.58 | 5.10±1.70 | 0.08 | .938 |
Fisher exact test;
Non-responders were excluded from the analysis;
Cont., control group; DP, developmental positioning; Int., intervention group; IPAT, Infant Positioning Assessment Tool.
Effects of the Educational Program on Developmental Positioning (N=60)
| Variables | Int. (n=30) | Cont. (n=30) | t |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M±SD | M±SD | |||
| DP knowledge | 29.73±1.80 | 24.57±3.32 | 7.49 | <.001 |
| Attitudes toward DP | 32.43±3.02 | 31.03±2.37 | 1.99 | .005 |
| DP self-efficacy | 83.86±12.60 | 75.30±9.31 | 2.99 | .004 |
| DP performance | 84.56±7.68 | 78.33±7.43 | 2.98 | .004 |
Cont., control group; DP, developmental positioning; Int., intervention group.
Infant Positioning Assessment Tool (IPAT) Score Change between Groups (N=60)
| Variable | Groups | Time | Source | F |
| Post-hoc[ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretest | Posttest 1[ | Posttest 2[ | ||||||
| M±SD | M±SD | M±SD | ||||||
| IPAT score | Int. (n=30) | 5.07±1.58a | 5.47±1.76b | 6.80±2.07c | Group | 1.63 | .207 | a<b, c |
| Cont. (n=30) | 5.10±1.70 | 5.23±1.50 | 5.37±1.59 | Time | 48.40 | <.001 | b<c | |
| G*T | 29.50 | <.001 | ||||||
After intervention;
4 weeks after intervention;
Tukey's HSD test, p<.050;
Cont., control group; G*T, group by time; Int., intervention group; IPAT, Infant Positioning Assessment Tool.