Relationships between cognitive appraisal and roles/personality traits in basic life support.

Tetsuya Nakamura, Sayuri Nakamura, Naoko Kageura, Akira Kondo, Yukika Hotta, Chikako Oda
{"title":"Relationships between cognitive appraisal and roles/personality traits in basic life support.","authors":"Tetsuya Nakamura,&nbsp;Sayuri Nakamura,&nbsp;Naoko Kageura,&nbsp;Akira Kondo,&nbsp;Yukika Hotta,&nbsp;Chikako Oda","doi":"10.20407/fmj.2021-008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the relationship between the cognitive assessment of stress (cognitive appraisal) caused in a scenario requiring basic life support (BLS) and the roles during BLS/personality traits in nursing students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey for 264 freshman and senior nursing students. The study period was one month from June 2019. The questionnaire included characteristics, roles (active involvement group/passive involvement group/no involvement group), Cognitive Appraisal Rating Scale (CARS), and Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI). We only included data for female students (107 people) in the analysis because very little data is available for male students. The Mann-Whitney test was used for the comparison between two groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the comparison between three groups. The significance level was set at p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of responses was 133 (50.4%), and the number of valid responses was 107 (40.5%). As a result of analyzing the relationship between the role and the CARS subscale, the controllability of the active and passive involvement groups was significantly lower than that of the no involvement group (p=0.046). Also, the analysis of the relationship between the grade and the CARS subscale showed that the controllability was significantly lower in freshmen than seniors (p=0.020).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed the relationship between controllability and cognitive appraisal of stress in the simulation scenario of BLS. Therefore, it was suggested that support for improving controllability is necessary as a preventive measure to reduce the stress associated with BLS.</p>","PeriodicalId":33657,"journal":{"name":"Fujita Medical Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"22-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9923453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fujita Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20407/fmj.2021-008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To examine the relationship between the cognitive assessment of stress (cognitive appraisal) caused in a scenario requiring basic life support (BLS) and the roles during BLS/personality traits in nursing students.

Methods: We conducted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey for 264 freshman and senior nursing students. The study period was one month from June 2019. The questionnaire included characteristics, roles (active involvement group/passive involvement group/no involvement group), Cognitive Appraisal Rating Scale (CARS), and Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI). We only included data for female students (107 people) in the analysis because very little data is available for male students. The Mann-Whitney test was used for the comparison between two groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the comparison between three groups. The significance level was set at p<0.05.

Results: The total number of responses was 133 (50.4%), and the number of valid responses was 107 (40.5%). As a result of analyzing the relationship between the role and the CARS subscale, the controllability of the active and passive involvement groups was significantly lower than that of the no involvement group (p=0.046). Also, the analysis of the relationship between the grade and the CARS subscale showed that the controllability was significantly lower in freshmen than seniors (p=0.020).

Conclusion: This study showed the relationship between controllability and cognitive appraisal of stress in the simulation scenario of BLS. Therefore, it was suggested that support for improving controllability is necessary as a preventive measure to reduce the stress associated with BLS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基本生命支持中认知评价与角色/人格特征的关系
目的:探讨护生在基本生命支持(BLS)情景下对压力的认知评价(认知评价)与BLS/人格特征的关系。方法:对264名大一、大四护生进行不记名自填问卷调查。研究期为2019年6月起一个月。问卷内容包括特征、角色(主动参与组/被动参与组/不参与组)、认知评价评定量表(CARS)和莫兹利人格量表(MPI)。我们在分析中只包括了女学生(107人)的数据,因为关于男学生的数据很少。两组间比较采用Mann-Whitney检验,三组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis检验。结果:总应答数133份(50.4%),有效应答数107份(40.5%)。通过对角色与CARS子量表的关系分析,主动、被动涉入组的可控性显著低于无涉入组(p=0.046)。年级与CARS分量表的关系分析显示,大一学生的可控性显著低于大四学生(p=0.020)。结论:本研究揭示了应激模拟情境中可控性与应激认知评价之间的关系。因此,有必要支持提高可控性,作为减少BLS相关应激的预防措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
A case of kidney graft injury during cesarean section in a pancreas and kidney transplantation recipient. Changes in kidney function after adrenalectomy in patients with primary aldosteronism. Design and implementation of a community-based rehabilitation curriculum for training multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams to serve people aging with disabilities. Development of the Proactive Behavior Scale for Mid-Career Nurses: a reliability and validity study. Measuring the effectiveness of career education at a medical university and future issues from the perspective of students' transformation: impact of a new career education program at a medical university on entrepreneurship effectiveness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1