Index of sources of stress in nursing students: a confirmatory factor analysis.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to test the proposed factor structure of the Index of Sources of Stress in Nursing Students. Background. Research across many countries has identified a number of sources of distress in nursing students but little attempt has been made to understand and measure sources of eustress or those stressors likely to enhance performance and well-being. The Index of Sources of Stress in Nursing Students was developed to do this. Exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure, the factors being labelled: learning and teaching; placement-related and course organization. It is important, however, to subject the instrument to confirmatory factor analysis as a further test of construct validity. Method. A convenience sample of final year nursing students (n = 176) was surveyed in one university in Northern Ireland in 2007. The Index of Sources of Stress in Nursing Students, which measures sources of stress likely to contribute to distress and eustress, was completed electronically. The LISREL programme was used to carry out the confirmatory factor analysis and test the factor structure suggested in the exploratory analysis. Findings. The proposed factor structure for the items measuring ‘Uplifts’ proved to be a good fit to the data and the proposed factor structure for the items measuring ‘Hassles’ showed adequate fit. Conclusion. In nursing programmes adopting the academic model and combining university-based learning with placement experience, this instrument can be used to help identify the sources of stress or course demands that students rate as distressing and those that help them to achieve. The validity of the ISSN could be further evaluated in other education settings.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of an infection control education and training intervention programme focusing on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in nursing homes for older people

The aim of this cluster randomised controlled trial was to test the impact of an infection control education and training programme on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence in nursing homes. Nursing homes were randomised to intervention (infection control education and training programme; N¼16) or control (usual practice continued; N¼16). Staff in intervention homes were educated and trained (0, 3 and 6 months) in the principles and implementation of good infection control practice with infection control audits conducted in all sites (0, 3, 6 and 12 months) to assess compliance with good practice. Audit scores were fed back to nursing home managers in intervention homes, together with a written report indicating where practice could be improved. Nasal swabs were taken from all consenting residents and staff at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was MRSA prevalence in residents and staff, and the secondary outcome was a change in infection control audit scores. In all, 793 residents and 338 staff were recruited at baseline. MRSA prevalence did not change during the study in residents or staff. The relative risk of a resident being colonised with MRSA in an intervention home compared with a control home at 12 months was 0.99 (95% con?dence interval: 0.69, 1.42) after adjustment for clustering. Mean infection control audit scores were signi?cantly higher in the intervention homes (82%) compared with the control homes (64%) at 12 months (P<0.0001). Consideration should be given to other approaches which may help to reduce MRSA in this setting.

Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing: The challenge of evidence-based practice

This article reconsiders the fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing in light of the challenge of narrowempirics in the formof evidence-based practice. Objections to the dominance of evidence-based practice are reviewed, and the reasons for it are examined. It is argued that it is partially the result of weaknesses in the alternative patterns of ethical, personal, and esthetic knowing, the ineffability of which compromises accountability. This ineffability can be countered only by introducing a wider form of empirics than countenanced by evidencebased practice into all patterns of knowing, to demonstrate their salience and to make their use in practice transparent.

Stress, coping and satisfaction in nursing students

Aim. This article is a report of a study conducted to explore the relationship between sources of stress and psychological well-being and to consider how different sources of stress and coping resources might function as moderators and mediators on well-being.


Background. In most research exploring sources of stress and coping in nursing students, stress has been construed as psychological distress. Sources of stress likely to enhance well-being and, by implication, learning have not been considered.


Method. A questionnaire was administered to 171 final year nursing students in 2008. Questions were asked to measure sources of stress when rated as likely to contribute to distress (a hassle) and rated as likely to help one achieve (an uplift). Support, control, self-efficacy and coping style were also measured, along with their potential moderating and mediating effects on well-being, operationalized using the General Health Questionnaire and measures of course and career satisfaction.


Findings. Sources of stress likely to lead to distress were more often predictors of well-being than were sources of stress likely to lead to positive, eustress states, with the exception of clinical placement demands. Self-efficacy, dispositional control and support were important predictors, and avoidance coping was the strongest predictor of adverse well-being. Approach coping was not a predictor of well-being. The mere presence of support appeared beneficial as well as the utility of that support to help a student cope.


Conclusion. Initiatives to promote support and self-efficacy are likely to have immediate benefits for student well-being. In course reviews, nurse educators need to consider how students’ experiences might contribute not just to potential distress, but to eustress as well.