精神发育迟滞患者亲属照顾者真实体验的质性研究

目的了解精神发育迟滞患者亲属照顾者在看护期间内心深处的感受,有针对性地给予看护技能指导。方法采用质性描述中的深度访谈法收集14名照顾者的资料,并用现象学分析法进行分析。结果精神发育迟滞患者亲属照顾者看护体验主要有4个主题：沉重的心理压力;经济负担过重;缺乏看护经验;以患者为中心的无自我决定权。结论护士应深入了解精神发育迟滞患者亲属照顾者内心深处的感受,使他们得到家庭护理能力的专业指导和社会的帮助。     

对无喉患者亲属照顾者真实体验的质性研究

目的 深入了解无喉患者亲属照顾者在看护期间内心的真实感受并进行探讨,以探索促进照顾者身心健康的相关因素.方法 运用质性研究方法,对12例照顾者进行深入访谈,现场笔录,并用现象学分析法进行整理分析.结果 升华出4个主题:心理压力大,经济负担重,生活方式改变,存在困惑.结论 在关注无喉患者生存质量的同时,不应忽视亲属照顾者所承受的负担、压力和相关问题,呼吁社会及政府提供行之有效的干预手段来帮助他们.     

老年痴呆照顾者虐待倾向原因的质性分析

目的 了解老年痴呆照顾者照顾过程中的真实感受,以探讨影响老年痴呆照顾者产生虐待倾向的原因.方法 运用现象学研究法对10名照顾者进行深度访谈,并用Colaizzi分析法对资料进行分析.结果 通过反复地阅读、整理、分析、分类、萃取了5个主题:缺乏疾病相关知识及照顾技巧;照顾工作繁琐,使照顾者身心俱疲;经济负担过重;缺乏社会相关支持;自我价值感低下.结论 在关注老年痴呆患者问题本身的同时,不应忽视照顾者在照顾过程中对患者产生的虐待倾向问题,呼吁社会和政府提供可行的服务和帮助.     

脊髓损伤亲属照顾者的心理状况研究

目的 了解脊髓损伤亲属照顾者在患者住院看护期间内心深处的感受,以探索影响脊髓损伤亲属照顾者身心健康的相关因素.方法 采用自设问卷调查患者家庭一般情况;访谈法收集36名照顾者的心理反应资料,Zung忧郁自评量表(SDS)评估陪护亲属的心理状况;并用t检验对测量到的SDS数据进行统计分析;用现象学分析法对患者陪护亲属心理感受进行分析.结果 亲属照顾者的受教育程度、照顾者性别对照顾负担之间经方差分析,呈负相关.结论 研究和关注脊髓损伤患者时,不应忽视亲属照顾者所承受的心理负担及相关问题,在护理患者的同时应给陪护亲属提供行之有效的干预手段来提高他们的心理应急能力.     

老年慢性病患者的家庭照顾者照护体验的质性研究

目的 深入了解老年慢性病患者的家庭照顾者在看护期间内心深处的感受,识别照顾老人对照顾者造成的影响,以探索促进照顾者身心健康的相关因素.方法 采用深入访谈和观察法收集15名照顾者的资料,并用现象学分析法进行分析.结果 通过反复阅读、分析、反思、分类和提炼主题,得出5个主题:照顾者的健康水平下降,心理负担过重,家庭关系恶化,个人自由时间受限,经济负担过重.结论 在研究和关注老年人健康问题的同时,不应忽视家庭照顾者所承受的负担及相关问题,并为之提供有效的干预手段,以提高其健康水平.     

亲属痴呆照顾者照顾感受心路历程的质性研究

目的 深入地了解痴呆照顾者的照顾感受的心路历程,进一步理解照顾者的感受,从而为照顾者提供需要的相应护理技术,也为后患病者的亲属指明了方向。 方法 采用质性研究中的现象学的研究方法,对11名痴呆照顾者进行非结构访谈,并用现象学分析法进行资料分析。 结果 采用类属分析法升华出5个主题包括：否认与痛苦、茫然与无措、调整与适应、投入与提高、自我价值的体现。 结论 在对老年痴呆患者关注的同时,也应关注照顾者在患者患病期间所承受的压力及情绪的改变,为他们提供有效的护理及情感支持以达到减轻照顾者负担提高患者及其亲属的生活质量。     

乳腺癌亲属照顾者照护体验与需求的质性研究

目的:探讨亲属照顾者在乳腺癌患者治疗及康复过程中的照护体验与需求。方法:对12例康复期乳腺癌患者亲属照顾者进行半结构式深入访谈,应用Colaizzi现象学研究法分析资料。 结果:康复期乳腺癌亲属照顾者的照护体验与需求可归纳为5个主题：不确定感、负性心理体验明显、生活方式改变、支持力量需求迫切、胜任力的建立。结论:了解康复期乳腺癌亲属照顾者的照护体验与需求,有助于引起家庭、医务人员及社会相关部门的重视,采取有效的支持和干预措施提高照顾者的生活质量和照护水平,更利于患者的康复。     

精神分裂症患者照顾者感受的质性研究

目的 了解精神分裂症患者照顾者在看护期间内心深处的感受.方法 采用质性描述中的深度访谈法,收集15名照顾者的访谈资料,并用现象学分析法进行分析.结果 采用类属分析法升华出照顾者看护体验的6个的主题概念：心理负担过重;经济负担过重;缺乏看护经验;以患者为中心的无自主权;康复知识缺乏;照顾经历中获得积极愉快的心理感受.结论 护士应深入了照顾者内心深处的感受,给予他们家庭护理的专业指导,提高家庭护理质量,促进患者全面康复更快回归社会.     

糖尿病合并老年痴呆照顾者的负担及影响因素分析

目的了解糖尿病合并老年痴呆照顾者的负担及影响因素。方法采用便利抽样法,选取老年内科病房糖尿病合并老年痴呆的照顾者16人,使用照顾者负担问卷进行调查及深度访谈。结果糖尿病合并老年痴呆照顾者的负担重,照顾者负担总分为54-92分,以时间依赖型负担、情感性负担最为突出;照顾者年龄及老年痴呆患者病程与照顾者负担呈正相关。通过深度访谈,得出照顾者的照顾任务繁重、心理负担重、缺乏相关知识及经验和患者不合作是照顾者负担的重要影响因素。结论糖尿病合并老年痴呆照顾者的负担重,影响因素较多,其中照顾者年龄、老年痴呆患者病程是主要影响因素。     

老年痴呆患者家庭焦虑照顾者体验的质性研究

目的深入了解老年痴呆患者焦虑照顾者的感受及需求。方法对10名老年痴呆患者的焦虑照顾者进行深度访谈,并运用Claizzi分析程序分析。结果老年痴呆患者焦虑照顾者的体验集中于5个方面:濒临崩溃、缺乏私人时间、经济负担过重、担心、恐惧和不安。结论在研究和关注老年痴呆问题时,不应忽视照顾者所承受的负担及相关问题,家庭、医院和社区建成社会支持网络,提供有效支持方式,给予痴呆照顾者及时的帮助,以提高其心理健康水平。     

A review of research related to blood transfusion in Canada, 2000-2002

The former National Blood Safety Council undertook a comprehensive review of blood transfusion research in Canada for the years 2000 through 2002. Data were acquired by direct contact with agencies which support such research and by searches of the relevant websites. Total grant support increased markedly over the 3-year period, from 4.1 million dollars to 18.5 million dollars. Publicly funded granting agencies, biopharmaceutical companies, the blood services and the province of Ontario were major supporters. Much smaller amounts were granted from charitable organizations. Clinical research attracted the majority of the funding, although a larger number of projects were basic science in nature. Most research was carried out in the provinces of Ontario, Québec and British Columbia. Although we have not assessed the productivity of blood-related research, it appears that substantial amounts of funding were allocated to these projects between 2000 and 2002. These data may provide a helpful perspective to investigators in transfusion medicine elsewhere, who may also be assessing the relative priority given to this field of research in their own countries.     

Setting a research agenda for interprofessional education and collaborative practice in the context of United States health system reform

Interprofessional education (IPE) and collaborative practice (CP) have been prolific areas of inquiry exploring research questions mostly concerned with local program and project assessment. The actual sphere of influence of this research has been limited. Often discussed separately, this article places IPE and CP in the same conceptual space. The interface of these form a nexus where new knowledge creation may be facilitated. Rigorous research on IPE in relation to CP that is relevant to and framed by health system reform in the U.S. is the ultimate research goal of the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education at the University of Minnesota. This paper describes the direction and scope for a focused and purposive IPECP research agenda linked to improvement in health outcomes, contextualized by health care reform in the U.S. that has provided a revitalizing energy for this area of inquiry. A research agenda articulates a focus, meaningful and robust questions, and a theory of change within which intervention outcomes are examined. Further, a research agenda identifies the practices the area of inquiry is interested in informing, and the types of study designs and analytic approaches amenable to carrying out the proposed work.     

AORN and University of Michigan School of nursing research alliance

Research related to perioperative care requires advanced training and is well suited to take place at a research-intensive university. A recent research alliance established between AORN and the University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, uses the strengths of both a robust perioperative professional organization and a research-intensive university to make progress toward improving patient safety and transforming the perioperative work environment. Research activities undertaken by this alliance include investigating nurse staffing characteristics and patient outcomes, as well as evaluating the congruence and definitions of data elements contained in AORN's SYNTEGRITY™ Standardized Perioperative Framework. Disseminating the findings of the alliance is expected to facilitate the communication and application of new knowledge to nursing practice and help advance the perioperative nursing profession.     

Bridging the divide: a survey of nurses' opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization in the practice setting

Background. Many researchers have explored the barriers to research uptake in order to overcome them and identify strategies to facilitate research utilization. However, the research–practice gap remains a persistent issue for the nursing profession. Aims and objectives. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of perceived influences on nurses’ utilization of research, and explore what differences or commonalities exist between the findings of this research and those of studies that have been conducted in various countries during the past 10 years. Design. Nurses were surveyed to elicit their opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization. The instrument comprised a 29‐item validated questionnaire, titled Barriers to Research Utilisation Scale (BARRIERS Scale), an eight‐item scale of facilitators, provision for respondents to record additional barriers and/or facilitators and a series of demographic questions. Method. The questionnaire was administered in 2001 to all nurses (n = 761) working at a major teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia. A 45% response rate was achieved. Results. Greatest barriers to research utilization reported included time constraints, lack of awareness of available research literature, insufficient authority to change practice, inadequate skills in critical appraisal and lack of support for implementation of research findings. Greatest facilitators to research utilization reported included availability of more time to review and implement research findings, availability of more relevant research and colleague support. Conclusion. One of the most striking features of the findings of the present study is that perceptions of Australian nurses are remarkably consistent with reported perceptions of nurses in the US, UK and Northern Ireland during the past decade. Relevance to clinical practice. If the use of research evidence in practice results in better outcomes for our patients, this behoves us, as a profession, to address issues surrounding support for implementation of research findings, authority to change practice, time constraints and ability to critically appraise research with conviction and a sense of urgency.     

Barriers to and facilitators of research utilization, as perceived by a group of registered nurses in Sweden

A survey was conducted to describe registered nurses' ( n =237), perceptions of the barriers to and the facilitators of research utilization at two hospitals in Sweden. A questionnaire, Barriers and Facilitators to Using Research in Practice developed by Funk et al. , was used to collect the data. The major barriers to research utilization were that the research is not readily available along with inadequate facilities for implementation of research findings, lack of competent colleagues with whom to discuss research, lack of time for reading and implementing research findings and the nurses lack of authority in the organization. The nurses who had studied research methods in their basic nursing education, seemed to perceive fewer barriers than those who had not. The facilitating factors most frequently suggested by the nurses were diverse models of education to increase their knowledge of research methods and to develop skills in evaluating research findings. The allocation of resources for education and implementation of research findings in clinical practice, in addition to special positions in clinical practice for nurses with scientific qualifications, were also suggested.     

Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Inventory of Programs and Materials within CTSAs

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) require instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as a component of any Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The Educational Materials Group of the NIH CTSA Consortium''s Clinical Research Ethics Key Function Committee (CRE‐KFC) conducted a survey of the 38 institutions that held CTSA funding as of January 2009 to determine how they satisfy RCR training requirements. An 8‐item questionnaire was sent by email to directors of the Clinical Research Ethics, the Educational and Career Development, and the Regulatory Knowledge cores. We received 78 completed surveys from 38 CTSAs (100%). We found that there is no unified approach to RCR training across CTSAs, many programs lack a coherent plan for RCR instruction, and most CTSAs have not developed unique instructional materials tailored to the needs of clinical and translational scientists. We recommend collaboration among CTSAs and across CTSA key function committees to address these weaknesses. We also requested that institutions send electronic copies of original RCR training materials to share among CTSAs via the CTSpedia website. Twenty institutions submitted at least one educational product. The CTSpedia now contains more than 90 RCR resources.     

The struggle for methodological orthodoxy in nursing research: the case of mental health

This paper is not intended as an exhaustive review of contemporary mental health nursing research. Rather, the intention is to explore some of the competing arguments for different methodological approaches in social research, using mental health nursing as a case example. The paper questions the extent to which the artificially dichotomized debate over quantitative versus qualitative research impacts upon the working lives of practitioners, managers and policy makers. In particular, the paper traces the development of survey method, during this its centennial anniversary year. It also traces its subsequent decline, in favour of what will be referred to as the new methodological orthodoxy in nursing research. It is also interwoven with occasional accounts of personal experience, drawn from an international perspective. The paper calls for a reapproachement between different wings of methodological opinion, in deference to a publicly unified position for nursing research in which the achievement of quality becomes the over-arching concern.     

Authorship Order in Medical Education Publications: In Search of Practical Guidance for the Community

Phenomenon: With scholarly collaborations come questions about the order of authorship. Authorship order is an important consideration because it often used as an indicator of seniority, expertise, leadership, and scholarly productivity. As a result, authorship order factors into decisions about hiring, salary, resource allocation, and professional advancement. This study describes principles commonly applied to authorship order decisions within the medical education community and educators’ opinions about the significance of authorship order. Approach: A questionnaire was developed to ascertain current practices related to authorship decisions. Sixteen items were rated in terms of frequency of actual use and the desirability of the practice using a 4-point rating scale: 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (always). Additional questions addressed the perceived significance of authorship order. The last set of questions provided information about respondents’ personal and career characteristics. The survey was delivered via e-mail to a random sample of 391 subscribers from the DR-ED listserv. Findings: Fifty-four e-mail addresses were returned as undeliverable; of the remaining 337 mailed surveys, 109 responses (32.3%) were received. Five of the current practices for determining authorship order were rated as both frequent and desirable; 4 items had low ratings suggesting that these practices were both infrequent and undesirable. For 7 items, there was a significant gap between the ratings of practice frequency and desirability. When asked about preferred authorship order strategies, most respondents (94%) endorsed listing authors by descending order based on contribution but were split in identifying the last author (47%) or second author (46%) as the next best placement after first author. Respondents supported the practice of many journals requiring authors to disclose their contributions, agreeing (69%) that it provides useful information for promotion and tenure committees; however, 43% were uncertain about how disclosed contributions were reflected in authorship order. Insights: Respondents strongly endorsed the importance of listing authors in order of decreasing contribution, although the meaning of second versus last author lacks consensus. This finding, together the other strategies that received strong endorsement and those that were not strongly endorsed, provides a starting point to develop guidance for medical educators about how to determine authorship order. Clear guidance for authors would promote fairness and accountability within the medical education community as well as provide more consistent interpretation for those who consider authorship order for career- and resource-related decisions.