Implementing a psycho-educational model to increase university lecturers’ effectiveness to constructively manage experienced aggression

Abstract

Background: The authors developed a psycho-educational model as a conceptual framework of reference for university lecturers to facilitate the constructive management of experienced aggression. The model must be implemented in a workshop and in practice to confirm the if the model is effective.Aim: This article describes the implementation of a psycho-educational model in a workshop and in practice, as well as the evaluation of the effectiveness of the psychoeducational model.Setting: This study was conducted in a specific college at a university in Johannesburg in South Africa.Method: This study followed a qualitative, exploratory, descriptive, contextual and theory-generating research design. The psycho-educational model was implemented in three phases during a workshop and then for three months in practice by university lecturers. A purposive sample of university lecturers was applied. The effectiveness of the psycho-educational model was evaluated during and directly after the workshop, 1 week after the workshop and 3 months journal entries. Final evaluation was in a focus group after 3 months of implementation of the model in the workplace.Results: The participating university lecturers found the implementation of the psycho-educational model, as a conceptual framework of reference to constructively manage experiences of aggression, effective, helpful and important. The model increased their understanding of aggression in their places of work and increased their effectiveness to constructively manage experiences of aggression in their workplace.Conclusion: The implementation and evaluation of the psycho-educational model underscored the need for affective and effective facilitative support for university lecturers to be able to constructively manage experienced aggression.

Workplace-Based Interventions for Mental Health in Africa: A Scoping Review

“…A variety of study designs were represented, including randomised controlled trials (n = 3) [21][22][23], quasi-experimental studies with two groups and no randomisation (n = 2) [27,39] and pre-experimental single group studies with a pre-test, post-test design (n = 6) [24,26,27,31,34,38]. There were also several qualitative studies (n = 7) [24,34,35,44] and mixed-methods designs (n = 4) [24,36,41], as well as cross-sectional quantitative studies (n = 2) [18,20] and a longitudinal descriptive study (n = 1) [42].…”

“…The majority of titles related to hospitals and clinics (n = 8) [17,20,25,28,36,37,40,42,44], as well as corporate environments (n = 8) [19,23,32,[39][40][41][42]. These were followed by manufacturing and industrial workplaces (n = 4) [22][23][24]29,35], schools and universities (n = 4) [25,26,38,41] and a municipality (n = 1) [28]. The remaining two studies were conducted in various workplaces [32,43].…”

“…Employers were not always on board with the programmes, and interventions were sometimes poorly implemented as a result [22,33,37,46]. Limited long-term follow ups of outcomes after the programmes was another barrier [34,37,39,41,43]. Reported barriers to research on workplace-based interventions for mental health included small sample sizes, study design and limited generalisability [21,22,24,[26][27][28]31,32,[34][35][36]38,39,[41][42][43].…”

“…Limited long-term follow ups of outcomes after the programmes was another barrier [34,37,39,41,43]. Reported barriers to research on workplace-based interventions for mental health included small sample sizes, study design and limited generalisability [21,22,24,[26][27][28]31,32,[34][35][36]38,39,[41][42][43]. Authors also named outcome measure limitations as a barrier.…”

“…Authors also named outcome measure limitations as a barrier. Appropriate outcome measures were not always available, and these were often self-report measures [23,26,27,29,31,33,35,37,41,43,47,48]. Time constraints was another barrier, both to the interventions and to the research [26,37,39].…”