4.5 Article

A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 592-598

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.03.018

关键词

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); Epidemic outbreak; Nurse; Psychological experience; Qualitative study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading rapidly, bringing pressure and challenges to nursing staff. Objective: To explore the psychology of nurses caring for COVID-19 patients. Methods: Using a phenomenological approach, we enrolled 20 nurses who provided care for COVID-19 patients in the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology from January 20, to February 10, 2020. The interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone and were analysed by Colaizzi's 7-step method. Results: The psychological experience of nurses caring for COVID-19 patients can be summarized into 4 themes. First, negative emotions present in early stage consisting of fatigue, discomfort, and helplessness was caused by high-intensity work, fear and anxiety, and concern for patients and family members. Second, self-coping styles included psychological and life adjustment, altruistic acts, team support, and rational cognition. Third, we found growth under pressure, which included increased affection and gratefulness, development of professional responsibility, and self-reflection. Finally, we showed that positive emotions occurred simultaneously with negative emotions. Conclusions: During an epidemic outbreak, positive and negative emotions of the front-line nurses interweaved and coexisted. In the early stage, negative emotions were dominant and positive emotions appeared gradually. Self-coping styles and psychological growth played an important role in maintaining mental health of nurses. (C) 2020 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据