4.2 Article

Development and effects of a non-face-to-face forest therapy program for nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic

期刊

JAPAN JOURNAL OF NURSING SCIENCE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jjns.12566

关键词

mental health promotion; stress management; therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a non-face-to-face forest therapy program was developed and applied to nurses working in hospitals. The results showed that the program significantly reduced the stress level of clinical nurses, but had no significant effect on happiness. This suggests that the non-face-to-face forest therapy program has a positive effect on stress relief.
Aim: In this study, we developed a non-face-to-face forest therapy program using videos and applied it to nurses working in hospitals during the prolonged COVID-19 situation to confirm the effect on their mental health.Method: This study was a randomized control group pretest-posttest, and 27 clinical nurses in the experimental group and 28 clinical nurses in the control group participated. The program developed forest therapy videos and three city videos each. The experimental group watched the forest therapy video and the control group watched the city video and stress and happiness were measured through pre-test and post-test.Results: The stress level of clinical nurses who applied the non-face-to-face forest therapy program had a significant reduction effect compared to the control group on day 2 (t = -2.239 P = .026) and day 3 (t = -3.188, P = .003). On the other hand, there was no significant effect in happiness in both groups. In addition, repeated measures analysis of variance statistical analysis confirmed that the stress level of the experimental group significantly decreased over time (F = 10.578, P < .001).Conclusion: The non-face-to-face forest therapy program is significant in that it had a positive effect on relieving stress by conducting a randomized controlled study targeting clinical nurses working in various hospitals.

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

4.2
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