4.6 Article

Impact of a meaning-centered intervention on job satisfaction and on quality of life among palliative care nurses

Journal

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 12, Pages 1300-1310

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1513

Keywords

meaning; palliative care nursing; group intervention; stress management; randomized trial; satisfaction at work; quality of life

Funding

  1. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) [RC2-0946,05]
  2. Investigator Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Palliative care (PC) nurses experience several recurrent organizational, professional, and individual challenges. To address existential and emotional demands, the meaning-centered intervention was recently developed. The intervention applied didactic and process-oriented strategies, including guided reflections, experiential exercises, and education based on themes of Viktor Frankl's logotherapy. The objective of this study was to test its efficiency to improve job satisfaction and quality of life in PC nurses from three regional districts in Quebec Province, Canada. Methods: A randomized waiting-list group design was conducted, intervention group (n = 56) versus waiting-list group (n = 53). Job satisfaction, perception of benefits of working in PC, and spiritual and emotional quality of life were measured at pre-, posttest, and 3-month follow-up. Results: The PC nurses in the experimental group reported more perceived benefits of working in PC after the intervention and at follow-up. Spiritual and emotional quality of life remained, however, unaffected by the intervention. Conclusions: To explain null findings, theoretical and methodological challenges, related to existential interventions, such as choice of outcomes, and selection bias (participants recruited were healthy workers) are discussed. Future directions and strategies to deal with those issues are proposed. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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