Evaluation of the Swedish Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale and exploration of nurses' and physicians' self-efficacy in Swedish hospitals: A cross-sectional study.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1111/scs.13244
Lisa Granat, Sofia Andersson, Daniel Åberg, Emina Hadziabdic, Anna Sandgren
{"title":"Evaluation of the Swedish Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale and exploration of nurses' and physicians' self-efficacy in Swedish hospitals: A cross-sectional study.","authors":"Lisa Granat, Sofia Andersson, Daniel Åberg, Emina Hadziabdic, Anna Sandgren","doi":"10.1111/scs.13244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous research found that healthcare professionals had low preparedness for palliative care. Thus, it is necessary to explore healthcare professionals' self-efficacy. The Swedish Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale (SEPC-SE) evaluates readiness in communication, patient management and multidisciplinary teamwork; however, it should be tested on a larger population. Furthermore, the constructs of the SEPC-SE should be compared to that of the original SEPC.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the consensus between the construct validity and reliability of the SEPC and the translated and adapted SEPC-SE. Furthermore, it aimed to describe and compare the self-efficacy of nurses and physicians in hospitals and explore the associated factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The nurses (n = 288) and physicians (n = 104) completed the SEPC-SE. Factor analysis with Cronbach's alpha evaluated validity and reliability, and an analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test compared self-efficacy and multiple linear regression-associated factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SEPC-SE revealed three factors with high reliability. Education or experience in specialised palliative care was minor, especially for nurses. Self-efficacy was highest in patient management (nurses, median [md] = 74.57, physicians md = 81.71, p = 0.010) and communication (nurses md = 69.88, physicians md = 77.00, p = 0.141) and lowest in multidisciplinary teamwork (nurses md = 52.44, physicians md = 62.88, p = 0.001). The strongest associations with self-efficacy were education at work and advanced homecare experiences. In addition, there were significant associations between years in the profession, male sex, physicians and university education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SEPC-SE is valid and reliable for measuring self-efficacy. Nurses had lower self-efficacy than physicians. Physicians were associated with higher self-efficacy and had more education and experience in palliative care settings, which may explain their levels of self-efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48171,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"568-578"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13244","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Previous research found that healthcare professionals had low preparedness for palliative care. Thus, it is necessary to explore healthcare professionals' self-efficacy. The Swedish Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale (SEPC-SE) evaluates readiness in communication, patient management and multidisciplinary teamwork; however, it should be tested on a larger population. Furthermore, the constructs of the SEPC-SE should be compared to that of the original SEPC.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the consensus between the construct validity and reliability of the SEPC and the translated and adapted SEPC-SE. Furthermore, it aimed to describe and compare the self-efficacy of nurses and physicians in hospitals and explore the associated factors.

Methods: The nurses (n = 288) and physicians (n = 104) completed the SEPC-SE. Factor analysis with Cronbach's alpha evaluated validity and reliability, and an analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test compared self-efficacy and multiple linear regression-associated factors.

Results: The SEPC-SE revealed three factors with high reliability. Education or experience in specialised palliative care was minor, especially for nurses. Self-efficacy was highest in patient management (nurses, median [md] = 74.57, physicians md = 81.71, p = 0.010) and communication (nurses md = 69.88, physicians md = 77.00, p = 0.141) and lowest in multidisciplinary teamwork (nurses md = 52.44, physicians md = 62.88, p = 0.001). The strongest associations with self-efficacy were education at work and advanced homecare experiences. In addition, there were significant associations between years in the profession, male sex, physicians and university education.

Conclusion: The SEPC-SE is valid and reliable for measuring self-efficacy. Nurses had lower self-efficacy than physicians. Physicians were associated with higher self-efficacy and had more education and experience in palliative care settings, which may explain their levels of self-efficacy.

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
评估瑞典姑息治疗自我效能感量表,探讨瑞典医院护士和医生的自我效能感:横断面研究。
背景:以往的研究发现,医护人员对姑息关怀的准备程度较低。因此,有必要探究医护人员的自我效能。瑞典姑息治疗自我效能量表(SEPC-SE)可评估医护人员在沟通、患者管理和多学科团队合作方面的准备情况;但该量表应在更大范围的人群中进行测试。目的:本研究旨在评估姑息治疗自我认知量表(SEPC)与经翻译和改编的姑息治疗自我认知量表(SEPC-SE)在构架效度和信度方面的一致性。此外,研究还旨在描述和比较医院护士和医生的自我效能感,并探讨相关因素:护士(288 人)和医生(104 人)完成了 SEPC-SE。使用 Cronbach's alpha 进行因子分析,评估有效性和可靠性;使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行分析,比较自我效能感和多元线性回归相关因子:结果:SEPC-SE显示了三个可靠性较高的因素。专业姑息关怀的教育或经验是次要因素,尤其是对护士而言。患者管理(护士,中位数[md] = 74.57,医生,中位数 = 81.71,p = 0.010)和沟通(护士,中位数 = 69.88,医生,中位数 = 77.00,p = 0.141)方面的自我效能感最高,而多学科团队合作(护士,中位数 = 52.44,医生,中位数 = 62.88,p = 0.001)方面的自我效能感最低。与自我效能相关性最强的是工作教育和先进的家庭护理经验。此外,从业年限、男性、医生和大学教育程度之间也有明显的关联:结论:SEPC-SE 在测量自我效能感方面是有效和可靠的。护士的自我效能感低于医生。医生的自我效能感较高,并且在姑息关怀领域受过更多教育、拥有更多经验,这可能是他们自我效能感水平较高的原因。
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
4.60
自引率
5.30%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences is an established quarterly, peer reviewed Journal with an outstanding international reputation. As the official publication of the Nordic College of Caring Science, the Journal shares their mission to contribute to the development and advancement of scientific knowledge on caring related to health, well-being, illness and the alleviation of human suffering. The emphasis is on research that has a patient, family and community focus and which promotes an interdisciplinary team approach. Of special interest are scholarly articles addressing and initiating dialogue on theoretical, empirical and methodological concerns related to critical issues. All articles are expected to demonstrate respect for human dignity and accountability to society. In addition to original research the Journal also publishes reviews, meta-syntheses and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Exploring young adults' experiences with food allergy during their teenage years: A practice research study. Factors influencing job satisfaction and professional competencies in clinical practice among internationally educated nurses during the migration journey: A mixed-methods systematic review. Navigating parenthood in the face of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A qualitative exploration of partner experiences. Meaning-oriented thematic analysis grounded in reflective lifeworld research-A holistic approach for caring science research. Catalysts for change: A qualitative study of middle managers' perception of nursing professional competence in primary healthcare.
×
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