Descriptive cross-sectional study assesses psychological first aid knowledge in emergency nurses, suggesting improvements in training are necessary.
Introduction Psychological first aid is an essential framework for delivering immediate emotional and psychological support to individuals affected by crises and traumatic events. Emergency nurses must possess adequate knowledge and preparedness to provide effective psychological first aid during emergencies. Objective This study aimed to assess the levels of knowledge and preparedness to provide Psychological First Aid (PFA) among emergency nurses working in hospitals across the West Bank, Palestine between February and April 2024. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between February and April 2024 among 164 emergency nurses working in 19 governmental and nongovernmental hospitals across nine cities in the West Bank, Palestine. Data were collected using an online structured questionnaire assessing nurses’ knowledge of and preparedness for psychological first aid. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive and inferential statistics to describe study variables. Results Most nurses had moderate knowledge of psychological first aid (71.3%), 14.6% had low knowledge, and 14.0% had high knowledge. In terms of preparedness, 51.2% reported being prepared, 31.7% were unprepared, and 17.1% were uncertain. Preparedness was significantly influenced by sex, workplace setting, and professional roles ( p < .05). Conclusion Despite moderate knowledge levels, over half of the emergency nurses reported adequate preparedness to deliver psychological first aid, suggesting a readiness to respond but with insufficient theoretical grounding. The findings highlight the urgent need to integrate psychological first aid modules into emergency nursing curricula, conduct periodic simulation-based training, and develop standardized institutional protocols to ensure consistent and evidence-based PFA delivery across Palestinian hospitals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: