Barriers and facilitators for the use of NURSING bedside handovers : implications for evidence‐based practice

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on bedside handovers have identified nurse-related barriers and facilitators for implementing bedside handovers, but have neglected the existing ward's nursing care system as an important influencing factor. AIMS: To determine the association between the existing nursing care system (i.e., decentralized, two-tier, or centralized) on a ward and the barriers and facilitators of the bedside handover. METHODS: Structured individual interviews (N = 106) on 14 nursing wards in eight hospitals were performed before implementation of bedside handovers. The structured interview guide was based on a narrative review. Direct content analysis was used to determine the nursing care system of a ward and the degree to which barriers and facilitators were present. Pearson's Chi-square analysis was used to determine whether there were associations between the nursing care systems concerning the presence of barriers and facilitators for implementing bedside handovers. RESULTS: Twelve barriers and facilitators were identified, of which three are new to literature: the possible loss of opportunities for socializing, collegiality, and overview; head nurse's role; and role of colleagues. The extent to which barriers and facilitators were present differed across nursing care systems, with the exception of breach of confidentiality (barrier), and an existing structured handover (facilitator). Overall, nurses working in decentralized nursing care systems report fewer barriers against and more facilitators in favor of using bedside handovers than nurses in two-tier or centralized systems. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Before implementing bedside handovers, the context of the nursing care system may be considered to determine the most effective process to implement change. Based on these study findings, implementing bedside handovers could be more challenging on wards with a two-tier or centralized care system

The pivotal role of effort beliefs in mediating implicit theories of intelligence and achievement goals & academic motivations

Empirical studies into meaning systems surrounding implicit theories of intelligence typically entail two stringent assumptions: that different implicit theories and different effort beliefs represent opposite poles on a single scale, and that implicit theories directly impact the constructs as achievement goals and academic motivations. Through an empirical study based on a large sample of university students, we aim to demonstrate that relaxing these stringent assumptions, and thereby using the meaning system framework to its full potential, will provide strong benefits: effort beliefs are crucial mediators of relationships between implicit theories and achievement goals and academic motivations, and the different poles of implicit theories and effort beliefs do expose different relationships with goal setting behaviour and academic motivations. A structural equation model, cross-validated by demonstrating gender-invariance of path coefficients, demonstrates that incremental and entity theory views have less predictive power than positive and negative effort beliefs in explaining achievement goals and motivations

The psychology of passion: A meta-analytical review of a decade of research on intrapersonal outcomes

It is just over a decade since Vallerand et al. (J Personal Soc Psychol 85:756–767, 2003) introduced the dualistic model of passion. In this study, we conduct a meta-analytical review of relationships between Vallerand et al’s two passions (viz. harmonious and obsessive), and intrapersonal outcomes, and test the moderating role of age, gender, domain, and culture. A systematic literature search yielded 94 studies, within which 27 criterion variables were reported. These criterion variables derived from four research areas within the intrapersonal sphere: (a) well-/ill-being, (b) motivation factors, (c) cognitive outcomes and, (d) behaviour and performance. From these areas we retrieved 1308 independent effect sizes and analysed them using random-effects models. Results showed harmonious passion positively corresponded with positive intrapersonal outcomes (e.g., positive affect, flow, performance). Obsessive passion, conversely, showed positive associations with positive and negative