Mindfulness‐based stress reduction training yields improvements in well‐being and rates of perceived nursing errors among hospital nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This pilot study aims to further document mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)'s effect on well-being while exploring its impact on errors among hospital nurses. BACKGROUND: The concept of mindfulness has been found to be highly relevant to holistic nursing practices but remains understudied and underused. Preliminary evidence suggests that MBSR can reduce stress among nurses. As stress and mental processes such as inattention are potential sources of error, MBSR may also help to improve patient safety. Reducing errors is of significant relevance in healthcare settings. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with a matched pair design was conducted. METHODS: Seventy Registered Nurses and licensed practical nurses were randomized to MBSR (N = 37) or a waitlist control condition (N = 33). RESULTS: Intention-to-treat ANCOVAs revealed that MBSR produced significant improvements in distress. High levels of treatment satisfaction were reported by a majority of participants. Of the nurses who reported that errors had been a problem for them (28.6%), a perceived improvement was noticed by over a third (37.5%) at 3 months post-treatment. CONCLUSION: These initial findings suggest that the benefits of MBSR may extend to nursing errors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".