MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200495592 · doi:10.1186/s12912-021-00729-6

Effects of an educational intervention to strengthen humanistic practice on haemodialysis nurses’ caring attitudes and behaviours and quality of working life: a cluster randomised controlled trial

2021· article· en· W4200495592 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Antonini, Tanja Bellier-Teichmann, Louise O’Reilly, Chantal Cara, Sylvain Brousseau, Jean Weidmann, Delphine Roulet-Schwab, Isabelle Ledoux, Mario Konishi, Jérôme Pasquier, Philippe Delmas

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)NursingQuality of life (healthcare)Nursing researchRandomized controlled trialFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nurses are trained to establish a trusting relationship with patients to create an environment promoting patients' quality of life. However, in tech-heavy care settings, such as haemodialysis units, dehumanising practices may emerge and take root for various reasons to the potential detriment of both patients and nurses. For patients, this may lead to a deterioration of quality of life and, ultimately, of health status. For nurses, it may cause a deterioration of the work environment and, in turn, of quality of working life. Based on Watson's Theory of Human Caring, we developed a brief educational intervention for haemodialysis nurses to strengthen their humanistic practice in the aim of improving the nurse-patient relationship and nurse quality of working life.. The intervention was tested by way of an experimental design. METHODS: One hundred and one haemodialysis nurses, recruited in ten hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland, were randomised into an experimental group that received the intervention and a control group. The nurse-patient relationship was measured with the Caring Nurse-Patient Interaction Scale (EIIP-70) and nurse quality of life at work was measured with the Quality of Work Life Questionnaire at four time points: pre-intervention, intervention completion, and six-month and one-year follow-ups. Random intercept regression analysis was used to evaluate change over time in the two variables under study. RESULTS: The intervention appeared to reinforce nurse attitudes and behaviours geared to a more humanistic practice. The effect seemed to fade over time but, 1 year post-intervention, six dimensions of the nurse-patient relationship (hope, sensibility, helping relationship, expression of emotions, problem solving, teaching) scored above baseline. Nurse quality of working life, too, seemed positively impacted. The cultural dimension of nurse quality of working life, that is, the degree to which everyday work activities attune with personal and cultural values, seemed positively impacted, as well, with improvement stable throughout the year following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Results support a positive effect of the intervention over both the short term and the medium-to-long term. A brief intervention of the sort may constitute an effective means to improve the nurse-patient relationship by preventing or reducing dehumanising practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03283891 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207