4.3 Article

Initial Clinical Practicum Stress among Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Study on Coping Styles

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094932

关键词

nursing students; clinical practicum; psychological stress; coping

资金

  1. Ewha Womans University
  2. Wonkwang University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nursing students experience various stressors during their initial clinical practicum, and coping styles are related to stress levels. Passive coping style is associated with higher stress levels, suggesting that professors and clinical educators should recognize different coping styles and incorporate different teaching methods in clinical settings.
Nursing students experience various stressors during their initial clinical practicum. As these stressors negatively affect learning and performance, coping strategies are essential. Therefore, this research study explored the relationship between coping styles and stress levels using a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample of 184 nursing students. Clinical practicum stress and coping styles were assessed via electronic questionnaires, and the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and variance analyses. The highest score for clinical practice stress was for the practical education environment and practical work burden. The total stress score differed significantly according to coping style (t = -2.36, p = 0.020), and the total stress score of the passive coping group was higher. Among the sub-categories of stress, the scores of the education environment (t = -2.68, p = 0.008) and having undesirable role models (t = -2.14, p = 0.034) were significantly higher in the passive coping group. Although practical work burden was the highest stress factor in the active coping style group, the stress on the environment was highest in the passive coping group. The findings show that professors and clinical educators should recognize the various coping styles and incorporate different teaching methods in the clinical setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据