Qualified and Unqualified (N-R C) mental health nursing staff - minor differences in sources of stress and burnout. A European multi-centre study

BACKGROUND: Unqualified/non-registered caregivers (N-R Cs) will continue to play important roles in the mental health services. This study compares levels of burnout and sources of stress among qualified and N-R Cs working in acute mental health care. METHODS: A total of 196 nursing staff - 124 qualified staff (mainly nurses) and 72 N-R Cs with a variety of different educational backgrounds - working in acute wards or community mental teams from 5 European countries filled out the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Mental Health Professional Scale (MHPSS) and the Psychosocial Work Environment and Stress Questionnaire (PWSQ). RESULTS: (a) The univariate differences were generally small and restricted to a few variables. Only Social relations (N-R Cs being less satisfied) at Work demands (nurses reporting higher demands) were different at the .05 level. (b) The absolute scores both groups was highest on variables that measured feelings of not being able to influence a work situation characterised by great demands and insufficient resources. Routines and educational programs for dealing with stress should be available on a routine basis. (c) Multivariate analyses identified three extreme groups: (i) a small group dominated by unqualified staff with high depersonalization, (ii) a large group that was low on depersonalisation and high on work demands with a majority of qualified staff, and (iii) a small N-R C-dominated group (low depersonalization, low work demands) with high scores on professional self-doubt. In contrast to (ii) the small and N-R C-dominated groups in (i) and (iii) reflected mainly centre-dependent problems. CONCLUSION: The differences in burnout and sources of stress between the two groups were generally small. With the exception of high work demands the main differences between the two groups appeared to be centre-dependent. High work demands characterized primarily qualified staff. The main implication of the study is that no special measures addressed towards N-R Cs in general with regard to stress and burnout seem necessary. The results also suggest that centre-specific problems may cause more stress among N-R Cs compared to the qualified staff (e.g. professional self-doubt)

Qualified and Unqualified (N-R C) mental health nursing staff - minor differences in sources of stress and burnout. A European multi-centre study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Unqualified/non-registered caregivers (N-R Cs) will continue to play important roles in the mental health services. This study compares levels of burnout and sources of stress among qualified and N-R Cs working in acute mental health care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 196 nursing staff - 124 qualified staff (mainly nurses) and 72 N-R Cs with a variety of different educational backgrounds - working in acute wards or community mental teams from 5 European countries filled out the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Mental Health Professional Scale (MHPSS) and the Psychosocial Work Environment and Stress Questionnaire (PWSQ).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>(a) The univariate differences were generally small and restricted to a few variables. Only Social relations (N-R Cs being less satisfied) at Work demands (nurses reporting higher demands) were different at the .05 level. (b) The absolute scores both groups was highest on variables that measured feelings of not being able to influence a work situation characterised by great demands and insufficient resources. Routines and educational programs for dealing with stress should be available on a routine basis. (c) Multivariate analyses identified three extreme groups: (i) a small group dominated by unqualified staff with high depersonalization, (ii) a large group that was low on depersonalisation and high on work demands with a majority of qualified staff, and (iii) a small N-R C-dominated group (low depersonalization, low work demands) with high scores on professional self-doubt. In contrast to (ii) the small and N-R C-dominated groups in (i) and (iii) reflected mainly centre-dependent problems.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The differences in burnout and sources of stress between the two groups were generally small. With the exception of high work demands the main differences between the two groups appeared to be centre-dependent. High work demands characterized primarily qualified staff. The main implication of the study is that no special measures addressed towards N-R Cs in general with regard to stress and burnout seem necessary. The results also suggest that centre-specific problems may cause more stress among N-R Cs compared to the qualified staff (e.g. professional self-doubt).</p

Why is self-help neglected in the treatment of emotional disorders? A meta-analysis

Background. Although the burden of emotional disorders is very high, mental health care is only available to a minority of patients. The literature suggests that self-help strategies, both bibliotherapy and self-help groups alike, are effective for various, less serious complaints but it is unclear whether available data support a role for self-help in treatment protocols for patients with clinically significant emotional disorders. Method. We searched the literature with a focus on 'anxiety' and/or 'depressive disorder'. Standardized assessment of diagnosis or symptoms and randomized controlled trials were inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis. Results. The mean effect size of self-help (mainly bibliotherapy) v. control conditions is 0(.)84, and 0(.)76 for follow-up; the effect sizes of self-help v. treatment are -0(.)03 and -0(.)07 respectively. A longer treatment period is more effective. Conclusions. Bibliotherapy for clinically significant emotional disorders is more effective than waiting list or no treatment conditions. The dearth of studies on self-help groups for emotional disorders does not permit an evidence-based conclusion concerning the effects of self-help groups. No difference was found between bibliotherapy and psychiatric treatment of relatively short duration

Acceptability of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and self-directed therapies in Australians living with chronic hepatitis C

Despite the prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in chronic hepatitis C (CHC), treatment is under-researched. Patient preferences are likely to affect treatment uptake, adherence, and success. Thus, the acceptability of psychological supports was explored. A postal survey of Australian CHC outpatients of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and online survey of Australians living with CHC was conducted, assessing demographic and disease-related variables, psychosocial characteristics, past experience with psychological support, and psychological support acceptability. The final sample of 156 patients (58 % male) had significantly worse depression, anxiety, stress, and social support than norms. The most acceptable support type was individual psychotherapy (83 %), followed by bibliotherapy (61 %), pharmacotherapy (56 %), online therapy (45 %), and group psychotherapy (37 %). The most prominent predictor of support acceptability was satisfaction with past use. While individual psychotherapy acceptability was encouragingly high, potentially less costly modalities including group psychotherapy or online therapy may be hampered by low acceptability, the reasons for which need to be further explored.Benjamin J. R. Stewart, Deborah Turnbull, Antonina A. Mikocka-Walus, Hugh A. J. Harley, Jane M. Andrew