4.1 Article

Attitudes of nursing staff towards nutritional nursing care

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF CARING SCIENCES
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 223-231

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-6712.2003.00226.x

关键词

measurement; attitudes; nutritional nursing care; residents; municipal care

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fulfilling nutritional requirements in residents with eating problems can be a challenge for both the person in need of help and for the caregiver. In helping and supporting these residents, a positive attitude is assumed to be as important as practical skill. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that nutritional education and implementation of a nutritional programme would change the attitudes towards nutritional nursing care among nursing staff with daily experience of serving food and helping residents in municipal care. The study was carried out as a before and after experimental design. An attitude scale, staff attitudes to nutritional nursing care (SANN scale), was developed and used. The response on the scale gives a total SANN-score and scores in five underlying dimensions: self ability, individualization, importance of food, assessment and secured food intake. Nursing staff at eight different residential units (n = 176) responded to the attitude scale and, of these, staff at three of the units entered the study as the experimental group. After responding to the attitude scale, nutritional education was introduced and a nutritional programme was implemented in the experimental units. One year later, attitudes were measured a second time (n 192). Of these, 151 had also responded on the first occasion. Education and implementation of a nutritional programme did not significantly change attitudes. overall, nursing staff responded with positive attitudes towards nutritional nursing care. Most of the positive attitudes concerned items within the dimension importance of food. in contrast, items within self ability showed the lowest number of staff with positive attitudes.

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

4.1
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