BACKGROUND: Although nursing assistants (NAs) represent a large segment of Canadian health care providers, little is known about psychosocial factors related to their physical and psychological well-being and how these compare with their registered nurse (RN) counterparts. AIM: Guided by Maddi and Kobasa's theoretical framework of Factors Affecting Health-Illness Status, the purpose of the present study was to examine relationships among hardiness, psychological distress and work support in NAs, and to compare results with those from a sample of RNs. METHOD: A random sample of 171 NAs in Quebec completed self-report questionnaires. The study instruments included validated French-Canadian versions of Kobasa's Hardiness Scale, Ilfeld's Psychiatric Symptom Index, and Moos' Work Relationship Index. RESULTS: As theoretically predicted, statistically significant correlations were found between hardiness and psychological distress (r = -0.42; P < 0.001), hardiness and work support (r = 0.27; P < 0.001), and between work support and psychological distress (r = -0.21; P < 0.001). Using a mediational model and multiple regression analyses, hardiness among NAs was found to be a significant mediator between work support and psychological distress. Comparative analyses revealed that whereas NAs and RNs reported similar levels of psychological distress (P = 0.25) and work support (P = 0.13), NAs reported significantly less hardiness (t = -5.58; P < 0.01). In addition, NAs and RNs reported significantly more psychological distress than the general population of Quebec, Canada (t = 9.07 and 22.84, P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results add support to Maddi and Kobasa's theoretical propositions linking personal and contextual resources to health-related outcomes and offer insights into specific factors that may affect the health and well-being of both NAs and RNs as well as their work climate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harrisson et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: