Community‐based health programme for nurses and midwives: A mixed methods evaluation

Author:

Jarden Rebecca12ORCID,Jarden Aaron3ORCID,Bujalka Helena1ORCID,Weiland Tracey4ORCID,Brockenshire Naomi1ORCID,Taylor Glenn5ORCID,Gerdtz Marie1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Nursing, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences The University of Melbourne Carlton Victoria Australia

2. Austin Health Heidelberg, Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. Centre for Wellbeing Science, Faculty of Education The University of Melbourne Parkville, Melbourne Victoria Australia

4. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health The University of Melbourne Carlton, Melbourne Victoria Australia

5. Nursing and Midwifery Health Program – Victoria Cremorne Victoria Australia

Abstract

AbstractAimTo evaluate a community‐based psychological health and well‐being programme for nurses and midwives.DesignMixed methods programme evaluation.MethodsFour studies were included: observational descriptive study (cross‐sectional survey) of the health, well‐being and experiences of previous programme participants (Study 1); observational exploratory prospective cohort study (longitudinal survey) of health, well‐being and experiences of participants who engaged in the programme from 2020 to 2023 (Study 2); qualitative descriptive study (interviews) of experiences and perceptions of nurses and midwives who have engaged with the programme as participants or clinicians (Study 3); observational descriptive study (cross‐sectional survey) of experiences and perceptions of programme stakeholders (Study 4). Surveys included validated measures. Data were collected online. Descriptive, repeated measures and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsOne‐hundred and fifteen participants completed Study 1: 20% (n = 23) reported stress in the severe‐to‐extremely severe category; 22% (n = 25) reported psychological distress in the moderate‐to‐severe category. Thirty‐one programme participants were followed in Study 2: the effect of the programme on participant well‐being over time was not significant. Sixteen programme participants and eight programme clinicians were interviewed (Study 3). Experiences of nurses and midwives engaging with the programme were highly positive and strong attributes of the programme included (1) shared professional experience of clinicians and participants which supported a common language and facilitated understanding, and (2) effective programme leadership, and autonomy and flexibility in the clinicians' role which enabled and supported a positive working experience. Thirty‐nine broader stakeholders participated in a cross‐sectional survey (Study 4). All stakeholders reported high satisfaction with the programme. Participants considered the programme being ‘by nurses and midwives, for nurses and midwives’ critical to the programme's success and value.ConclusionsThe community‐based psychological health and well‐being programme developed, led and delivered by nurses and midwives, for nurses and midwives, was a highly valued resource.Impact Levels of stress and burnout in the health workforce are high. A community‐based psychological health and well‐being programme for nurses and midwives was found to be an important and highly valued resource for nurses and midwives. A programme delivered by nurses and midwives, for nurses and midwives, was considered critical to programme success. Programme leadership, and autonomy and flexibility in the programme clinicians' roles, facilitated and supported a positive working experience for programme clinicians. Implications for the Profession and Patient CareQuality and safety in patient care is directly impacted by the well‐being of nurse and midwives. A community‐based psychological health and well‐being programme for nurses and midwives was found to be an important and highly valued resource for nurses and midwives.Reporting MethodSurvey findings were reported according to STROBE (von Elm et al. in Lancet, 370:1453–1457, 2007) and qualitative findings according to COREQ (Tong et al. in International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6):349–357, 2007).Patient or Public ContributionNo patient or public contribution.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3