Work-Related Health Burdens of Nurses in Germany: A Qualitative Interview Study in Different Care Settings

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: The growing need for nursing care is offset by a shortage of nurses, who are exposed to high physical and psychological demands in their daily work and have above-average absences that vary between different care settings. Based on the data on sick days, the question arises: What are the subjective work-related health burdens of nurses in acute care hospitals, inpatient care facilities, and outpatient care services? Methods: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in different care settings between May and September 2021. Questions about the professional career, everyday working life and personal health, violence in the workplace, and organizational framework conditions were asked. Results: The experiences of the nurses highlighted that health-related burdens have varying manifestations in different care settings. This was reflected in three main categories: health, everyday working life, and experiences of violence. In particular, the different structural framework conditions that trigger stress and the occurrence of violence are important from the perspective of the nurses. Conclusions: The results of this exploratory study can serve as a baseline for obtaining further setting-specific quantitative data that can contribute to the development, implementation, and evaluation of target group-specific health promotion programs.

Related collections

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

0 comments Cited 9289 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

Nicola K Gale, Gemma Heath, Elaine Cameron … (2013)

Background The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. Discussion The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Summary Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.

0 comments Cited 2485 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough?

Monique M Hennink, Bonnie N Kaiser, Vincent C Marconi (2017)

Saturation is a core guiding principle to determine sample sizes in qualitative research, yet little methodological research exists on parameters that influence saturation. Our study compared two approaches to assessing saturation: code saturation and meaning saturation. We examined sample sizes needed to reach saturation in each approach, what saturation meant, and how to assess saturation. Examining 25 in-depth interviews, we found that code saturation was reached at nine interviews, whereby the range of thematic issues was identified. However, 16 to 24 interviews were needed to reach meaning saturation where we developed a richly textured understanding of issues. Thus, code saturation may indicate when researchers have "heard it all," but meaning saturation is needed to "understand it all." We used our results to develop parameters that influence saturation, which may be used to estimate sample sizes for qualitative research proposals or to document in publications the grounds on which saturation was achieved.