4.0 Article

Association Among Workplace Spirituality, Spiritual Well-Being, and Spiritual Care in Practice With Multiple Mediators for Clinical Nurses

期刊

出版社

SLACK INC
DOI: 10.3928/00220124-20230113-08

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to establish a path model for predicting spiritual care among nurses in hospitals. The results showed that workplace spirituality and spiritual well-being predicted higher levels of spiritual care in practice through the mediating factors of burnout and compassionate care.
Background: Spiritual care helps individuals en- counter the transcendent meaning of their crises. How- ever, nurses report various barriers to providing spiri- tual care in clinical settings. To facilitate spiritual care among nurses, a more comprehensive understanding of this field is needed. This study was conducted to establish a path model for multiple factors predict- ing spiritual care among nurses working in hospitals.Method: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used. The participants were 370 nurses with more than 6 months of experience working in general hospitals in South Korea. The measures used in this study were nursing workplace spirituality, a spiritual well-being scale, the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Ser- vices Survey for Medical Personnel, a scale for compas- sionate care, a general self-efficacy scale, and spiritual care in practice. Path analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 24.0, and SPSS Amos, version 20.0.Results: Workplace spirituality and spiritual well- being predicted higher spiritual care in practice by se- quentially mediating burnout and compassionate care.Conclusion: This study suggests that nurses' spiritual care can be increased via the development of specific strategies focused on enhancing the nursing work- place spirituality of hospital organizations, promoting individual spiritual well-being and compassionate be- havior, and reducing burnout among nurses. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2023;54(2):89-96.]

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

4.0
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