4.6 Article

Patients' aggressive behaviours towards nurses: development and psychometric properties of the hospital aggressive behaviour scale- users

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages 1418-1427

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12016

Keywords

instrument development; nursing; patients; workplace violence

Categories

Funding

  1. Instituto de la Mujer [Woman's Institute] [152/07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim This article is to report the development and psychometric testing of the Hospital Aggressive Behaviour Scale Users. Background Workplace violence is present in many work spheres, but in the healthcare sector, nurses in particular are at more risk due to the close contact they maintain with users and clients and the special characteristics of this relationship. Design Using qualitative and quantitative methodology, an instrument was applied to a sample of 1,489 nurses from 11 public hospitals. Data collection was carried out in 2010 and 2011. Results Exploratory factor analysis yielded a 10-item instrument distributed in two factors (non-physical violence and physical violence), which was validated by means of confirmatory factor analysis. Both the resulting questionnaire and the factors identified present high internal consistency and adequate external validity, analysed by means of statistically significant correlations between the Hospital Aggressive Behaviour Scale and job satisfaction, burnout components, and psychological well-being. Conclusions The results indicate that, in nursing personnel, higher exposure to user violence leads to lower job satisfaction, more emotional exhaustion and more cynicism, and to a lower level of psychological well-being. The instrument developed in this study may be very useful in the sphere of assessment and prevention of psychosocial risks for the early detection of the problem of user violence in its two facets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available