| Literature DB >> 35220499 |
Aghil Habibi Soola1, Naser Mozaffari1, Alireza Mirzaei2.
Abstract
Emergency department (ED) nurses and emergency medical services (EMS) staff have been recently exposed to high levels of stress due to the new Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This increased stress level may influence the physical and mental health of ED nurses and EMS staff and the quality of caregiving to the patients. A spiritual coping approach is one of the most commonly used strategies to help healthcare workers manage stressful events or situations. This study explores the spiritual coping (positive or negative) among ED nurses and EMS staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed on 494 ED/EMS nurses in Ardabil Province in the northwest of Iran, using a convenience sampling method. The spiritual coping questionnaire (SCQ) was used to assess spiritual coping in the subjects. The results of this study showed that ED nurses and EMS staff generally used positive spiritual coping methods to reduce stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple linear regression indicated that workplace (β = 0.22, p < 0.001), service location (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), and type of employment (β = - 0.13, p = 0.012) were significant predictors of positive spiritual coping, and older age (β = 0.13, p = 0.045), overtime work (β = 0.12, p = 0.01), and marital status (β = - 0.12, p = 0.021) were predictors of negative spiritual coping. Our findings indicated that positive religious behavior was the main spiritual coping strategy used by healthcare workers. The findings could help emergency nurse managers to propose future strategies to minimize stress based on the use of spiritual coping strategies and provide time and facilities to pray.Entities:
Keywords: Coping behaviors; Emergency department; Emergency medical services; Nurses; Staff; Workplace and COVID-19
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35220499 PMCID: PMC8882226 DOI: 10.1007/s10943-022-01523-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Relig Health ISSN: 0022-4197
Demographic characteristics (n = 494)
| Demographic | Variables | (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age group | ≤ 29 years | 274 | 55.5 |
| 30–39 years | 171 | 34.6 | |
| ≥ 40 years | 49 | 9.9 | |
| Work experience | ≤ 9 years | 367 | 74.3 |
| 10–18 years | 114 | 23.1 | |
| ≥ 19 years | 13 | 2.6 | |
| Gender | Male | 297 | 60.1 |
| Female | 197 | 39.9 | |
| Marital status | Single | 203 | 41.1 |
| Married | 291 | 58.9 | |
| Educational levels | Associate | 80 | 16.2 |
| Bachelor’s | 414 | 83.8 | |
| Service location | Ardebil city | 266 | 53.8 |
| Countryside | 228 | 46.2 | |
| Workplace | ED | 285 | 57.7 |
| EMS | 209 | 42.3 | |
| Type of employment | Commitment | 159 | 32.2 |
| Contractual | 68 | 13.8 | |
| Employed | 267 | 54.0 | |
| Annual income (US$) | 1600–2200 | 44 | 8.9 |
| 2200–2800 | 256 | 51.8 | |
| 2800–3600 | 168 | 34.0 | |
| > 3600 | 26 | 5.3 | |
| Overtime | ≤ 40 | 114 | 23.1 |
| 41–80 | 164 | 33.2 | |
| 81–120 | 139 | 28.1 | |
| > 120 | 77 | 15.6 |
Comparison of total mean scores of Positive spiritual coping and Negative spiritual coping in terms of socio-demographic data of Emergency Department Nurses and Emergency Medical Services staff (n = 494)
| Variables | Positive spiritual coping | Negative spiritual coping | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||
| Age group | ≤ 29 years | 4.79 (0.71) | 2.65 (1.14) | ||
| 30–39 years | 4.52 (0.78) | 2.99 (1.16) | |||
| ≥ 40 years | 4.76 (0.93) | 2.83 (1.10) | |||
| Work experience | ≤ 9 years | 4.70 (0.76) | 2.76 (1.14) | ||
| 10–18 years | 4.65 (0.81) | 2.89 (1.15) | |||
| ≥ 19 years | 4.98 (0.58) | 3.14 (1.22) | |||
| Gender | Male | 4.76 (0.71) | 2.72 (1.14) | ||
| Female | 4.59 (0.85) | 2.91 (1.15) | |||
| Marital status | Single | 4.73 (0.73) | 2.85 (1.19) | ||
| Married | 4.67 (0.80) | 2.76 (1.11) | |||
| Educational levels | Associate | 4.89 (0.70) | 2.66 (1.22) | ||
| Bachelor’s | 4.66 (0.78) | 2.82 (1.13) | |||
| Service location | Ardebil city | 4.54 (0.81) | t = − 4.843 | 2.88 (1.14) | t = 1.744 |
| Countryside | 4.87 (0.68) | 2.70 (1.15) | |||
| Workplace | ED | 4.54 (0.82) | 2.91 (1.13) | ||
| EMS | 4.90 (0.65) | 2.64 (1.15) | |||
| Type of employment | Commitment | 4.85 (0.70) | 2.71 (1.21) | ||
| Contractual | 4.58 (0.70) | 2.80 (1.21) | |||
| Employed | 4.63 (081) | 2.85 (1.12) | |||
| Annual income (US$) | 1600–2200 | 4.65 (0.78) | 2.81 (1.05) | ||
| 2200–2800 | 4.76 (0.73) | 2.68 (1.17) | |||
| 2800–3600 | 4.60 (0.54) | 2.87 (1.11) | |||
| > 3600 | 4.74 (0.65) | 3.46 (1.11) | |||
| Overtime | < 40 | 4.87 (0.67) | 2.50 (1.13) | ||
| 41–80 | 4.59 (0.90) | 2.88 (1.17) | |||
| 81–120 | 4.65 (0.68) | 2.90 (1.09) | |||
| > 120 | 4.72 (0.72) | 2.87 (1.15) | |||
Multiple regression analysis for Positive spiritual coping and Negative spiritual coping total
| Variables | Positive spiritual coping total | Negative spiritual coping total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Sig | Beta | Sig | |||
| (Constant) | ||||||
| Age (30–39 years) | − 0.096 | 0.149 | 0.137 | 0.045 | ||
| Work experience | 0.121 | 0.059 | − 0.019 | 0.771 | ||
| Gender | 0.034 | 0.561 | Adj | 0.063 | 0.297 | Adj |
| Marital status (married) | 0.048 | 0.352 | − 0.122 | 0.021 | ||
| Educational levels | − 0.007 | 0.889 | − 0.013 | 0.791 | ||
| Service location (Countryside) | 0.165 | − 0.042 | 0.361 | |||
| Workplace (EMS) | 0.227 | − 0.107 | 0.086 | |||
| Type of employment (Employed) | − 0.133 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.800 | ||
| Annual income | − 0.010 | 0.829 | 0.087 | 0.078 | ||
| Overtime (81–120) | − 0.083 | 0.081 | 0.127 | 0.010 | ||