No abstract

BACKGROUND: Researchers have documented significant psychological problems among nursing students, but findings have been inconclusive as to whether nursing students are “at-risk” for mental health problems compared with their non-nursing peers. Aims: This study examined whether nursing students have unique mental health characteristics compared with students from other professions. METHOD: Undergraduates ( N = 18,312; nursing n = 1,399) were selected from the 2016-2017 National Healthy Minds Study. Participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (depression), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (anxiety), and the Flourishing Scale (positive psychology). RESULTS: Nursing students were equally likely to screen positive for depression and anxiety compared with their non-nursing peers. However, when controlling for gender, age, and year in school, multigroup structural equation modeling analyses revealed that female (but not male) nursing students reported significantly higher levels of specific anxiety symptoms and certain psychological strengths than female students from other professions. DISCUSSION: Nursing students are equally likely to screen positive for depression or anxiety as their non-nursing peers; however, anxiety disorders may reflect symptom profiles unique to nursing students. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a need for tailored screening and interventions to reduce mental health problems and harness psychological strengths unique to nursing students.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to examine pressure injury prevention and management (PIPM) practices in an academic acute care setting. Specifi c aims were to (1) develop and examine key stakeholder engagement regarding PIPM practices, (2) develop a valid/reliable gap analysis instrument, and (3) conduct a gap analysis of current PIPM practices. DESIGN: Mixed-methods convergent design and participatory action research. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: A nurse-led council (Council) of key stakeholders from a large academic university healthcare setting was developed. The gap analysis was conducted in a southern gulf coast level I trauma academic acute care hospital in the Southeastern United States. METHODS: A multidisciplinary key stakeholder Council with 27 members was developed to accomplish study aims using the participatory action research approach to train, promote, and foster key stakeholder engagement in all aspects of the research process. The Pressure Injury Prevention Gap Analysis Instrument (PIPGAI) was developed and psychometrically tested. A gap analysis of PIPM practices across a level I trauma academic acute care hospital was conducted using the PIPGAI. RESULTS:The PIPGAI was developed using 2019 Pressure Ulcer/Injury Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations, an integrative literature review/appraisal, a concept map, and Council input. The overall PIPGAI content validity index of 0.95 demonstrated excellent content validity. The individual item content validity index scores ranged from 0.62 to1.0. Low-scoring items (0.62-0.75) were deleted or revised. Interrater reliability was demonstrated by percentage of agreement (62%-79%). Using a modifi ed Delphi approach, items of disagreement were summarized and discussed until 100% consensus was achieved. A gap analysis of PIPM practices was conducted resulting in a cumulative score of 267/553 (48%), indicating gaps in PIPM practices. Fifty (73%) items had content present; 37 of 58 (64%) items had minimal detail, and 36 of 58 (62%) items were diffi cult or required notable effort to accomplish. Fifty items (63%) had a total score of 4 or less and were identifi ed as a gap (range: 0-7). CONCLUSIONS:The main outcome of this study was an innovative and evidence-based gap analysis process. The study provides (1) a model for key stakeholder engagement, (2) a valid/reliable gap analysis instrument, and (3) a method to evaluate PIPM practices.