1. Introduction
Nurses represent the largest group of healthcare professionals, primarily tasked with providing direct patient care. Regardless of the clinical setting, the demands of healthcare delivery can be highly stressful and pose risks to their personal safety. These challenges are influenced not only by the workplace, such as somatic hospitals or psychiatric facilities, but also by the patients’ conditions [1]. Healthcare staff face numerous challenges while ensuring patient safety and delivering high-quality care. The demands imposed by employers and patients often subject nurses to intense stress and constant pressure [2].
A general hospital, also referred to as a somatic hospital, provides care for patients with somatic diseases [3]. These patients often present with physical symptoms such as pain, organ dysfunction, or general weakness [4,5], sometimes rooted in psychological disorders, prolonged stress, or fear for their lives [6]. In such hospitals, nurses may also encounter aggressive behavior, especially among patients experiencing drug or alcohol withdrawal or those with mental health issues, often directed toward nurses physically and verbally [7].
Conversely, psychiatric nurses often face heightened stress levels due to the nature of their work, which involves caring for individuals with suicidal tendencies, aggression, or threats of violence. This leads to greater emotional strain compared to nurses in other specialties [1]. Psychiatric nurses also use themselves as therapeutic tools, facing increased professional demands and stress, particularly when caring for patients with repeated or prolonged hospitalizations. Additionally, they often manage acutely psychotic, aggressive, or suicidal individuals [8,9].
Psychiatric units present unique challenges, exposing nurses to psychological stress, occupational burnout, depression, anxiety, and distress [10]. These units require managing acute mental health crises and emotionally demanding patient interactions [11,12]. Chronic exposure to such stressors can lead to burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and a diminished sense of personal achievement [13,14].
Stress is a topic of interest to many researchers, defined variably as both a mobilizing force for daily activities and a negative factor impacting physical and mental health. Stress arises when individuals perceive situations as difficult to manage or threatening. Its effects depend on the nature of the stressors, which may stem from work or living environments, and can manifest in symptoms like anxiety, reduced attention, sweating, palpitations, or hand tremors. Individuals may resort to alcohol or psychotropic substances to cope [15]. Prolonged occupational stress can impair daily functioning, reduce care quality, and lead to burnout [16]. Hospitals, as workplaces, have long been recognized as highly stressful environments, particularly for nurses [17].
According to Rafiei et al., occupational stress results from various factors, including personnel, work environment, and cultural conditions. It manifests in responses to job demands exceeding one’s capacity [18,19]. Job satisfaction among nurses encompasses remuneration, task accomplishment, handling difficult situations, and teamwork dynamics [20]. Imbalances in these areas can contribute to burnout syndrome, described by Suleiman-Martos et al. as physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion caused by chronic stress [21]. The intense emotional demands of nursing predispose many to depression and anxiety [22,23].
Occupational burnout is common in healthcare, especially among nurses, who engage in close interpersonal relationships with patients [24]. Defined as a reaction to chronic workplace stress, burnout has been included in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases [25]. First described by Freudenberger in 1974, it refers to fatigue or frustration stemming from prolonged stress and unmet expectations [26]. Burnout involves an imbalance between personal needs, values, and work demands [27,28] and comprises three main components: emotional exhaustion (a loss of energy or fatigue, manifesting physically or psychologically), depersonalization (negative, indifferent behaviors toward patients), and a reduced sense of personal achievement (feeling unfulfilled at work) [29,30].
Despite its significance, the literature lacks comparative analyses of occupational burnout in psychiatric versus somatic hospitals. Most studies focus on one type of hospital. It is widely believed that psychiatric nurses face higher stress and burnout due to their job’s nature. To address this knowledge gap, a study was conducted to compare stress and burnout levels in nurses from two hospitals within the same city—one somatic and one psychiatric.
The aim of our study was to report on the prevalence of stress and burnout among surveyed nurses employed at a psychiatric hospital and a somatic hospital. Based on the main objective, the following detailed research objectives were formulated:
How do respondents perceive the level of stress in their workplace?
Is occupational burnout prevalent among the surveyed nurses?
Do socio-demographic factors influence the levels of stress and occupational burnout?
Does the type of hospital where respondents are employed impact their levels of stress and job burnout?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design
In the present study, two state hospitals in Poland participated in the survey: a somatic hospital and a psychiatric hospital. The survey was conducted between February and April 2024 among nurses who were actively working. Each nurse provided informed consent to participate in the study, and the survey questionnaire was designed to ensure anonymity, containing no sensitive data that could identify the respondents.
2.2. Research Tools
The research tool was a survey questionnaire containing questions on socio-demographic data and two standardized tools: the Mini-COPE questionnaire (Inventory for Measuring Coping with Stress) and MBI (The Maslach Burnout Inventory).
2.2.1. Mini-COPE—Inventory for Measuring Coping with Stress
The Mini-COPE Inventory, developed by CH.S. Carver, is an abbreviated version of the Multidimensional Inventory for Measuring Coping with Stress, also known as COPE (The Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced). The Mini-COPE is designed for surveying both healthy and ill adults. The Polish adaptation of this tool [31] consists of 28 statements that represent 14 coping strategies, including active coping, planning, positive reevaluation, acceptance, humor, turning to religion, seeking emotional support, seeking instrumental support, distraction, denial, venting, using psychoactive substances, withdrawing from activities, and self-blame. For each statement, the respondent selects one of four possible responses, which are scored as follows: “I almost never do this” (0 points), “I rarely do this” (1 point), “I often do this” (2 points), and “I almost always do this” (3 points). Each of the 14 coping strategies is scored individually, with higher scores indicating more frequent use of a particular strategy. The tool is primarily used to measure dispositional coping, assessing typical reactions and feelings in situations of significant stress. The Polish version of Mini-COPE has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The internal consistency of the tool was assessed using the half-method, yielding a score of 0.86 (Guttman index: 0.87).
2.2.2. MBI—The Maslach Burnout Inventory
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), developed by Maslach and Jackson [27] and adapted into Polish by Pasikowski [32], is used to assess the level of occupational burnout. This questionnaire consists of 22 statements that describe the psychophysical state of the respondent related to the biological determinants of stress experienced at work [33] and are divided into three categories corresponding to the key aspects of occupational burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced sense of personal achievement. Responses are given on a 7-point frequency scale, where 0 means “never” and 6 means “every day”. The score is calculated separately for each subscale by summing the points for each aspect: emotional exhaustion is categorized as high (>27), moderate (17–26), or low (0–16); depersonalization is categorized as high (>13), moderate (7–12), or low (0–6); and lack of achievement is categorized as high (0–31), moderate (32–38), or low (>39). Higher scores on the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scales indicate more intense burnout, while lower scores on the sense of personal achievement scale are associated with higher burnout levels.
2.3. Participants
The study group consisted of a total of 379 nurses, with 189 employed at a somatic hospital and 190 employed at a psychiatric hospital. The inclusion criteria were full-time employment as a nurse in a psychiatric unit for more than one year and consent to participate in the study. It was planned to survey 200 nurses at each hospital who were working at the time of the survey, representing approximately 50% of all employed nurses at each hospital. After obtaining permission to conduct the survey, paper questionnaires were placed in the secretariats of the departments with a request for distribution to the nurses, to be returned in a sealed envelope once completed. A total of 400 survey questionnaires were distributed, and 384 were returned. After final verification, 379 correctly completed questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis. In the somatic hospital, 94.5% of the distributed questionnaires were completed, and in the psychiatric hospital, 95.0% were completed.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
A chi-square test of independence was used to assess the significance of differences. To compare the significance of differences in the use of coping strategies (Mini-COPE measurements) between the two groups, the Mann–Whitney U test was used for detailed measurements, and the t-test was applied for groups of strategies (due to their proximity to normal distributions). The Cramer’s V coefficient was used to assess the level of relationship between two nominal variables, at least one of which had more than two values. During these analyses, the corresponding p-values were also calculated using the Monte Carlo method. The IBM SPSS 26.0 package and the Exact Tests module were used to conduct the analysis. Correlations were performed using Spearman’s rho coefficient. To facilitate interpretation, statistically significant results were marked with the convention p < 0.05.
2.5. Ethical Procedure
The participation of nurses in the study was voluntary and anonymous. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki (64th WmA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013) and in accordance with Polish legal regulations. The application was favorably approved by the Bioethics Committee of the State Academy of Applied Sciences in Przemyśl (KB/1/2024).
3. Results
3.1. Results of the Author’s Survey Questionnaire
Socio-demographic and occupational data collected in the survey included gender, age, length of service, type of hospital where respondents were employed, and whether they worked shifts. A total of 379 nurses participated in the survey, with 189 employed at a somatic hospital and 190 employed at a psychiatric hospital. All socio-demographic and professional data were self-reported. Among the respondents in the somatic hospital, 92.9% were women, compared to 83.2% in the psychiatric hospital. The remaining respondents were men, but due to the small size of this group, these socio-demographic data were not considered in the statistical analysis. The participants were nurses of various ages. A larger proportion of the youngest respondents and those over 55 were found in the group working in a hospital for somatically ill patients compared to the group working in a psychiatric hospital. The relationship between these variables was statistically significant (p < 0.05), but the strength of the relationship was found to be insignificant (Cramer’s V = 0.184) (Table 1).
Nurses who had been working full-time in psychiatric wards for more than a year, regardless of their position, participated in the study. The shortest and the longest length of service are more inclusive of the respondents in the group employed at a hospital for somatically ill patients. The correlation coefficient is statistically significant (p < 0.05), but the strength of the relationship was found to be insignificant (Cramer’s V = 0.158) (Table 2).
A total of 14.2% of the nurses surveyed had graduated from high school or medical college, 52.5% had a bachelor’s degree in nursing (i.e., completed their first degree), and 33.2% of the respondents held a master’s degree in nursing. There was no statistically significant relationship (p > 0.05) between place of work and degree of education (Table 3).
The nurses surveyed worked in different shift systems: 19.8% worked a single shift, 3.4% worked an 8 h shift, and 76.8% worked a 12 h shift. These shift systems included night shifts, as well as work on Sundays and holidays. A shift system with 12 h duties is more common for those working in a hospital for the mentally ill than for those working in a hospital for the somatically ill. The relationship between the variables is statistically significant (p < 0.05) and has a weak strength of association (Cramer’s V = 0.126) (Table 4).
3.2. Results of the Mini-COPE and MBI Questionnaires
Among the respondents employed at the somatic hospital, the average MBI burnout score was 48.54 ± 10.00, with the minimum level of burnout being 22 points and the maximum reaching 83 points. The subscale scores were as follows: emotional exhaustion 21.74 ± 5.43, depersonalization 10.63 ± 2.86, and a reduced sense of personal achievement 16.37 ± 4.06.
For respondents employed at the psychiatric hospital, the average burnout score was 48.56 ± 10.63. The minimum level of burnout in this group was the same as that of the somatic hospital respondents. The subscale scores were: emotional exhaustion 21.95 ± 6.08, depersonalization 10.24 ± 3.00, and a reduced sense of personal achievement 16.38 ± 4.78.
Analysis using the Mann–Whitney U test showed that the workplace did not statistically significantly differentiate the results of occupational burnout or the ways of coping with stress (p > 0.05), according to the Mini-COPE questionnaire. Detailed results are presented in Table 5.
Since statistical analysis did not show that workplace did not statistically significantly differentiate the results of job burnout and ways of coping with stress, another correlation was performed collectively for all respondents.
Analysis with the Kruskal–Wallis test showed that only the scores of depersonalization, active coping and support seeking varied statistically significantly by work system (p < 0.05). Respondents working in shifts are characterized by slightly higher depersonalization scores compared to respondents working in single shifts. In addition, respondents working in single-shift and shift work (12 h on-call) are more actively coping with stress and seeking support than respondents working in shift work (8 h on-call) (Table 6).
3.3. Correlation Results
In the group of respondents working at the somatic hospital, more than a dozen statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were found between occupational burnout and stress-coping strategies. However, only one correlation showed a clear strength of association. It was observed that as the scores for reduced sense of personal achievement increased, the level of helplessness also increased (Spearman’s rho = 0.332). Additionally, there were clear strengths of the relationship indicating that with greater overall professional burnout, the level of active coping and support seeking decreased (Table 7).
Among those working in a psychiatric hospital, compared to those in a somatic hospital, there were more statistically significant correlations between occupational burnout and ways of coping with stress (p < 0.05). The most pronounced relationships showed that higher levels of occupational exhaustion were associated with lower levels of active coping (Spearman’s rho = −0.317) and support seeking (Spearman’s rho = −0.352). Additionally, with a reduced sense of personal accomplishment, active coping scores decreased (Spearman’s rho = −0.326). Less pronounced relationships indicated that greater emotional exhaustion and a more reduced sense of personal accomplishment were associated with lower levels of support seeking (Table 8).
Eight statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were found between age, seniority, education, and the level of burnout and ways of coping with stress in the group working in a hospital for somatically ill patients, with weak strengths of association. It was observed that as age and seniority increase, depersonalization, turning to religion, and support seeking decrease. Additionally, those with longer work experience were more emotionally exhausted and engaged more actively in coping with stress (Table 9).
In the group of people working in a hospital for the mentally ill, five statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were found between age, seniority, education, and the level of burnout and ways of coping with stress, with one showing a clear strength of association. Emotional exhaustion increased with longer job tenure (Spearman’s rho = 0.336). Weaker relationships indicated that older respondents had higher levels of emotional exhaustion and overall MBI burnout. Additionally, with longer tenure, levels of burnout increased and support seeking decreased (Table 10).
4. Discussion
The purpose of our study was to examine the prevalence of stress and occupational burnout among nurses employed in a psychiatric hospital and a somatic hospital. The results showed that the place of employment does not statistically significantly differentiate levels of occupational burnout or stress-coping strategies, as the results were almost identical.
Analyzing the literature, the authors did not find studies addressing these issues jointly. Existing studies typically focus on either psychiatric nurses or those employed in hospitals for somatic patients. The commonly held belief that psychiatric nurses are more prone to stress and occupational burnout was not confirmed in our study.
Ghavidel et al. claim that nursing patients diagnosed with mental illness is stressful due to interpersonal relationships within the treatment team and constant contact with individuals with complex emotional demands [21]. These stressful working conditions may place nurses working in psychiatric hospitals at greater risk of professional burnout [34]. Newman et al. found that most nurses experienced moderate occupational burnout, although they remained confident in their practice and found their work rewarding. However, they reported feeling stressed due to workload and conflicts within the treatment team [35]. Occupational burnout, stress, sleep quality, and depressive symptoms may form a complex relationship of mutual influence in the nursing profession [36], as confirmed by other studies [23,25,37].
Tununu et al. observed low levels of occupational burnout among respondents, with high job satisfaction. Support staff reported significantly higher levels of emotional exhaustion than psychiatric nurses and graduate nurses. Seniority impacted depersonalization scores, although burnout in all three domains was not present [38]. Another self-reported study indicated that emotional exhaustion increases among those working longer in mental hospitals. Older respondents exhibited higher levels of emotional exhaustion and overall MBI burnout. Additionally, with longer tenure, the level of burnout increased while support-seeking behaviors decreased. For nurses in hospitals for somatic patients, as age and seniority increased, depersonalization levels rose, while reliance on religion and support seeking declined. Emotional exhaustion also increased, along with active stress-coping efforts.
Alenezi et al. conducted a survey among nurses at a Saudi hospital for the mentally ill, reporting high levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal achievement, indicating a high overall level of job burnout [39]. Konstantinou et al. studied Greek psychiatric nurses and found high emotional exhaustion, moderate depersonalization, and low personal achievement, resulting in medium to high burnout levels [40]. Other studies on occupational burnout among nurses working with mentally ill patients have reported moderate to low levels across all domains, differing from the results of the current study [41], a finding supported by other research [42,43].
A study of nurses in intensive care units revealed that the work environment is a significant factor in stress and burnout, with moderate burnout levels observed [44]. Similar results were found among oncology nurses [45]. Burnout in nurses is associated with reduced safety and quality of care, lower patient satisfaction, and decreased organizational commitment and productivity. While traditionally seen as an individual issue, addressing burnout at the organizational level offers a broader perspective on this phenomenon [46].
Limitations of the Study
A strength of the study was that it surveyed most of the nursing staff employed at the hospitals. However, a notable limitation is that it was conducted at only one somatic hospital and one psychiatric hospital within the same city. Furthermore, the possibility of nurses exchanging opinions during the survey may have influenced responses. Future research should include more healthcare units providing similar services to validate or refute the findings.
5. Conclusions
Respondents working in both psychiatric and somatic hospitals rate the occurrence of occupational stress at a moderate level. The place of work does not statistically significantly differentiate the results of occupational burnout or ways of coping with stress. Among nurses employed in a somatic hospital, as age and length of service increase, depersonalization, turning to religion, and seeking support in situations of increased stress increase. In addition, those who have been working longer are more emotionally exhausted and more actively coping with stress. In contrast, levels of emotional exhaustion and overall MBI burnout increase among psychiatric nurses with longer tenure.
The results presented here indicate that managers should mobilize nursing staff to participate in on-the-job training programs that address stress management in order to acquire the necessary skills to cope with stress at work.
Conceptualization, K.T., K.K., H.K., M.L., K.P. and B.M.; methodology K.T., K.K. and B.M.; validation, K.T., K.K. and B.M.; formal analysis, K.T., K.K. and B.M.; investigation, K.T., K.K., H.K., M.L., K.P. and B.M.; resources, K.T., K.K., H.K., M.L., K.P. and B.M.; data curation, K.T., K.K. and B.M.; writing—original draft preparation, K.T., K.K., H.K., M.L., K.P. and B.M.; writing—review and editing, K.T., K.K., H.K., M.L., K.P. and B.M.; supervision, K.T., K.K. and B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki (64th WmA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013) and in accordance with Polish legal regulations. The application was favorably approved by the Bioethics Committee of the State Academy of Applied Sciences in Przemyśl (approval code: KB/1/2024; approval date: 6 February 2024).
Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Age distribution of surveyed nurses by place of employment.
| Variable | Place of Employment | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somatic Hospital | Psychiatric Hospital | ||||
| Age (years) | Below 25 | % | 16.4% | 9.5% | 12.9% |
| 26–35 | % | 24.9% | 24.2% | 24.5% | |
| 36–45 | % | 13.2% | 25.3% | 19.3% | |
| 46–55 | % | 26.5% | 27.9% | 27.2% | |
| Above 55 | % | 19.0% | 13.2% | 16.1% | |
| Total | % | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | |
| Cramer’s V | 0.184 | 12.775 | 4 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| coefficient | value | Chi-square | df | p | Monte Carlo p |
Length of service of surveyed nurses by place of employment.
| Variable | Place of Employment | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somatic Hospital | Psychiatric Hospital | ||||
| Length of service (years) | Below 5 | % | 29.1% | 26.8% | 28.0% |
| 5–10 | % | 14.8% | 15.8% | 15.3% | |
| 11–20 | % | 13.8% | 19.5% | 16.6% | |
| 21–30 | % | 18.0% | 24.2% | 21.1% | |
| Above 30 | % | 24.3% | 13.7% | 19.0% | |
| Total | N | 189 | 190 | 379 | |
| % | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Cramer’s V | 0.158 | 9.494 | 4 | 0.050 | 0.049 |
| coefficient | value | Chi-square | df | p | Monte Carlo p |
Education of surveyed nurses by place of employment.
| Variable | Place of Employment | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somatic Hospital | Psychiatric Hospital | ||||
| Education | High school | % | 18.0% | 10.5% | 14.2% |
| Bachelor’s | % | 51.3% | 53.7% | 52.5% | |
| Master’s | % | 30.7% | 35.8% | 33.2% | |
| Total | N | 189 | 190 | 379 | |
| % | 189 | 190 | 379 | ||
| Cramer’s V | 0.110 | Chi-square | df | p | Monte Carlo p |
| coefficient | value | ||||
Work system of surveyed nurses by place of employment.
| Variable | Place of Employment | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somatic Hospital | Psychiatric Hospital | ||||
| Work system | Single shift (7 h 35 m) | % | 24.3% | 15.3% | 19.8% |
| Multiple shifts (8 h) | % | 4.2% | 2.6% | 3.4% | |
| Multiple shifts (12 h) | % | 71.4% | 82.1% | 76.8% | |
| Total | N | 189 | 190 | 379 | |
| % | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
| Cramer’s V | 0.126 | 6.059 | 2 | 0.048 | 0.050 |
| coefficient | value | Chi-square | df | p | Monte Carlo p |
Mini-COPE and MBI questionnaire scores by type of hospital where respondents were employed.
| Workplace | MBI (22–88 pts.) | Emotional Exhaustion (9–36 pts.) | Depersonalization (5–20 pts.) | Reduced Sense of Personal Achievement | Active Coping | Helplessness | Seeking Support | Avoidance Behavior | Turn to Religion | Acceptance | Sense of Humor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somatic hospital | Mean | 48.74 | 21.74 | 10.63 | 16.37 | 1.88 | 0.90 | 1.78 | 1.36 | 1.53 | 1.82 | 1.01 |
| Median | 49.00 | 22.00 | 11.00 | 16.00 | 2.00 | 0.83 | 1.75 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 192.52 | 187.91 | 199.67 | 194.14 | 190.01 | 200.35 | 196.44 | 198.32 | 198.13 | 192.64 | 185.69 | |
| n | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | 189 | |
| Standard deviation | 9.30 | 5.43 | 2.86 | 4.06 | 0.62 | 0.49 | 0.65 | 0.52 | 0.87 | 0.76 | 0.76 | |
| Minimum | 22.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Maximum | 73.00 | 36.00 | 20.00 | 27.00 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 2.67 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| Psychiatric hospital | Mean | 48.56 | 21.95 | 10.24 | 16.38 | 1.91 | 0.81 | 1.71 | 1.29 | 1.40 | 1.78 | 1.04 |
| Median | 48.00 | 22.00 | 10.00 | 16.00 | 2.00 | 0.83 | 1.75 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 187.49 | 192.08 | 180.38 | 185.88 | 189.99 | 179.70 | 183.59 | 181.72 | 181.91 | 187.38 | 194.29 | |
| n | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | 190 | |
| Standard deviation | 10.63 | 6.08 | 3.00 | 4.78 | 0.57 | 0.51 | 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.98 | 0.74 | 0.71 | |
| Minimum | 22.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Maximum | 83.00 | 36.00 | 19.00 | 32.00 | 3.00 | 2.17 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| Total | Mean | 48.65 | 21.84 | 10.44 | 16.37 | 1.89 | 0.86 | 1.74 | 1.32 | 1.47 | 1.80 | 1.03 |
| Median | 49.00 | 22.00 | 10.00 | 16.00 | 2.00 | 0.83 | 1.75 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | |
| n | 9.98 | 5.76 | 2.93 | 4.43 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.68 | 0.51 | 0.92 | 0.74 | 0.73 | |
| Standard deviation | 22.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Minimum | 83.00 | 36.00 | 20.00 | 32.00 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| Mann–Whitney U | Max. | 17,560 | 16,127 | 17,173 | 17,954 | 15,998 | 16,738 | 16,382 | 16,417 | 17,456 | 17,140 | |
| p | 0.654 | 0.711 | 0.085 | 0.462 | 0.999 | 0.065 | 0.250 | 0.138 | 0.144 | 0.631 | 0.434 | |
| p (Monte Carlo) | 0.649 | 0.713 | 0.087 | 0.466 | 1.000 | 0.063 | 0.251 | 0.138 | 0.138 | 0.624 | 0.438 | |
Mini-COPE and MBI questionnaire scores by work system of respondents.
| Work System | MBI (22–88 pts.) | Emotional Exhaustion (9–36 pts.) | Depersonalization (5–20 pts.) | Reduced Sense of Personal Achievement (8–32 pts.) | Active Coping | Helplessness | Seeking Support | Avoidance Behavior | Turn to Religion | Acceptance | Sense of Humor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single shift—7 h 35 m | Mean | 46.96 | 21.13 | 9.65 | 16.18 | 1.99 | 0.85 | 1.89 | 1.32 | 1.52 | 1.77 | 1.12 |
| Median | 47.00 | 20.00 | 10.00 | 16.00 | 2.00 | 0.83 | 2.00 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 173.84 | 176.35 | 161.12 | 191.35 | 214.12 | 191.67 | 215.26 | 194.96 | 200.75 | 187.66 | 203.58 | |
| n | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 78 | |
| Standard deviation | 9.83 | 5.97 | 2.79 | 4.21 | 0.59 | 0.45 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.93 | 0.70 | 0.78 | |
| Minimum | 22.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Maximum | 71.00 | 36.00 | 20.00 | 26.00 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| Multiple shifts—8 h | Mean | 47.36 | 21.07 | 10.50 | 15.79 | 1.54 | 0.76 | 1.39 | 1.19 | 1.21 | 1.75 | 0.96 |
| Median | 49.00 | 21.50 | 10.00 | 14.00 | 1.67 | 0.83 | 1.63 | 1.42 | 1.25 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 184.18 | 187.11 | 182.57 | 161.14 | 139.00 | 178.54 | 142.21 | 169.75 | 162.64 | 189.39 | 189.96 | |
| n | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | |
| Standard deviation | 9.01 | 6.50 | 4.05 | 5.95 | 0.82 | 0.46 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 1.03 | 0.67 | 0.60 | |
| Minimum | 27.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 | |
| Maximum | 62.00 | 33.00 | 18.00 | 32.00 | 2.83 | 1.50 | 2.50 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 2.00 | |
| Multiple shifts—12 h | Mean | 49.02 | 21.96 | 10.61 | 16.45 | 1.88 | 0.86 | 1.72 | 1.32 | 1.45 | 1.81 | 1.01 |
| Median | 49.00 | 22.00 | 10.00 | 16.00 | 2.00 | 0.83 | 1.75 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 197.88 | 197.07 | 201.36 | 194.31 | 189.29 | 193.39 | 188.83 | 192.93 | 191.73 | 193.94 | 189.66 | |
| n | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | 292 | |
| Standard deviation | 10.08 | 5.71 | 2.89 | 4.43 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.69 | 0.52 | 0.92 | 0.76 | 0.72 | |
| Minimum | 22.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Maximum | 83.00 | 36.00 | 20.00 | 32.00 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| Total | Mean | 48.54 | 21.76 | 10.41 | 16.37 | 1.89 | 0.85 | 1.74 | 1.32 | 1.46 | 1.80 | 1.03 |
| Median | 49.00 | 22.00 | 10.00 | 16.00 | 2.00 | 0.83 | 1.75 | 1.33 | 1.50 | 2.00 | 1.00 | |
| Average rank | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | 379 | |
| n | 10.00 | 5.79 | 2.94 | 4.44 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.68 | 0.51 | 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.73 | |
| Standard deviation | 22.00 | 9.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Minimum | 83.00 | 36.00 | 20.00 | 32.00 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | |
| Kruskal–Wallis H | Maximum | 2.19 | 8.31 | 1.21 | 6.52 | 0.25 | 6.57 | 0.64 | 1.50 | 0.22 | 1.02 | |
| p | 0.226 | 0.335 | 0.016 | 0.546 | 0.038 | 0.884 | 0.038 | 0.727 | 0.473 | 0.896 | 0.600 | |
| p (Monte Carlo) | 0.226 | 0.330 | 0.016 | 0.548 | 0.035 | 0.890 | 0.036 | 0.726 | 0.474 | 0.899 | 0.591 | |
Correlations between Mini-COPE and MBI—nursing staff employed in a somatic hospital (n = 189).
| Workplace = Somatic Hospital | MBI (22–88 pts.) | Emotional Exhaustion (9–36 pts.) | Depersonalization (5–20 pts.) | Reduced Sense of Personal Achievement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman’s rho | Active coping | Correlation coefficient | −0.297 | −0.199 | −0.138 | −0.260 |
| Helplessness | Correlation coefficient | 0.224 | 0.068 | 0.102 | 0.332 | |
| Seeking support | Correlation coefficient | −0.287 | −0.266 | −0.186 | −0.164 | |
| Avoidance behavior | Correlation coefficient | 0.011 | −0.067 | −0.009 | 0.171 | |
| Turn to religion | Correlation coefficient | −0.099 | −0.038 | −0.143 | −0.070 | |
| Acceptance | Correlation coefficient | −0.107 | −0.066 | −0.026 | −0.105 | |
| Sense of humor | Correlation coefficient | 0.045 | −0.066 | −0.034 | 0.188 | |
Correlations between Mini-COPE and MBI—nursing staff employed in a psychiatric hospital (n = 190).
| Workplace = Psychiatric Hospital | MBI (22–88 pts.) | Emotional Exhaustion (9–36 pts.) | Depersonalization (5–20 pts.) | Reduced Sense of Personal Achievement (8–32 pts.) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spearman’s rho | Active coping | Correlation coefficient | −0.317 | −0.183 | −0.180 | −0.326 |
| Helplessness | Correlation coefficient | 0.275 | 0.211 | 0.174 | 0.205 | |
| Seeking support | Correlation coefficient | −0.352 | −0.286 | −0.204 | −0.283 | |
| Avoidance behavior | Correlation coefficient | −0.050 | −0.074 | −0.091 | 0.011 | |
| Turn to religion | Correlation coefficient | −0.073 | −0.004 | −0.144 | −0.082 | |
| Acceptance | Correlation coefficient | −0.196 | −0.099 | −0.154 | −0.181 | |
| Sense of humor | Correlation coefficient | −0.095 | −0.154 | 0.015 | −0.081 | |
Correlations between socio-demographic data and Mini-COPE and MBI—nursing staff employed in a hospital for somatic patients (n = 189).
| Workplace = Somatic Hospital | Age | Job Seniority | Education | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBI (22–88 pts.) | Correlation coefficient | 0.054 | 0.094 | −0.023 |
| Emotional exhaustion (9–36 pts.) | Correlation coefficient | 0.132 | 0.159 | −0.057 |
| Depersonalization (5–20 pts.) | Correlation coefficient | 0.158 | 0.192 | −0.104 |
| Reduced sense of personal achievement | Correlation coefficient | −0.142 | −0.119 | 0.124 |
| Active coping | Correlation coefficient | 0.115 | 0.144 | −0.007 |
| Helplessness | Correlation coefficient | −0.065 | −0.061 | −0.045 |
| Seeking support | Correlation coefficient | −0.239 | −0.197 | −0.043 |
| Avoidance behavior | Correlation coefficient | −0.137 | −0.105 | 0.005 |
| Turn to religion | Correlation coefficient | 0.213 | 0.242 | −0.069 |
| Acceptance | Correlation coefficient | 0.083 | 0.094 | 0.051 |
| Sense of humor | Correlation coefficient | −0.120 | −0.109 | 0.042 |
Correlations between socio-demographic data and Mini-COPE and MBI—nursing staff employed in a psychiatric hospital (n = 190).
| Workplace = Psychiatric Hospital | Age | Job Seniority | Education | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBI (22–88 pts.) | Correlation coefficient | 0.146 | 0.172 | 0.022 |
| Emotional exhaustion (9–36 pts.) | Correlation coefficient | 0.292 | 0.336 | 0.054 |
| Depersonalization (5–20 pts.) | Correlation coefficient | 0.006 | 0.025 | 0.102 |
| Reduced sense of personal achievement | Correlation coefficient | −0.053 | −0.038 | −0.020 |
| Active coping | Correlation coefficient | 0.070 | 0.042 | −0.032 |
| Helplessness | Correlation coefficient | 0.007 | −0.037 | 0.126 |
| Seeking support | Correlation coefficient | −0.099 | −0.146 | 0.018 |
| Avoidance behavior | Correlation coefficient | 0.013 | −0.058 | 0.057 |
| Turn to religion | Correlation coefficient | 0.088 | 0.058 | −0.013 |
| Acceptance | Correlation coefficient | −0.009 | −0.022 | −0.090 |
| Sense of humor | Correlation coefficient | −0.085 | −0.107 | −0.069 |
References
1. Abram, M.D.; Jacobowitz, W. Resilience and burnout in healthcare students and inpatient psychiatric nurses: A between-groups study of two populations. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs.; 2021; 35, pp. 1-8.
2. Michel, O.; Garcia Manjon, A.J.; Pasquier, J.; Ortoleva Bucher, C. How do nurses spend their time? A time and motion analysis of nursing activities in an internal medicine unit. J. Adv. Nurs.; 2021; 77, pp. 4459-4470.
3. Röhricht, F.; Green, C.; Filippidou, M.; Lowe, S.; Power, N.; Rassool, S.; Rothman, K.; Shah, M.; Papadopoulos, N. Integrated care model for patients with functional somatic symptom disorder—A co-produced stakeholder exploration with recommendations for best practice. BMC Health Serv. Res.; 2024; 24, 698.
4. Poloni, N.; Caselli, I.; Ielmini, M.; Mattia, M.; De Leo, A.; Di Sarno, M.; Isella, C.; Bellini, A.; Callegari, C. Hospitalized Patients with Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms: Clinical Context and Economic Costs of Healthcare Management. Behav. Sci.; 2019; 9, 80.
5. Cathébras, P. Patient-Centered Medicine: A Necessary Condition for the Management of Functional Somatic Syndromes and Bodily Distress. Front. Med.; 2021; 8, 585495.
6. Henningsen, P. Management of somatic symptom disorder. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci.; 2018; 20, pp. 23-31. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29946208]
7. Nair, S.S.; Kwan, S.C.; Ng, C.W.M.; Teo, D.C.L. Approach to the patient with multiple somatic symptoms. Singap. Med. J.; 2021; 62, pp. 252-258. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34409478]
8. Kim, S.; Kweon, Y. Psychological Capital Mediates the Association between Job Stress and Burnout of among Korean Psychiatric Nurses. Healthcare; 2020; 8, 199. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32640647]
9. Maharaj, S.; Lees, T.; Lal, S. Negatywne stany psychiczne i ich związek z funkcją poznawczą pielęgniarek. J. Psychophysiol.; 2019; 33, pp. 207-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000223]
10. Weber, C.; Monero Flores, V.; Wheele, T.P.; Miedema, E.; White, E.V. Patients’ Health & Well-Being in Inpatient Mental Health-Care Facilities: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychiatry; 2022; 12, 758039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.758039] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35046849]
11. Hurley, J.; Lakeman, R.; Linsley, P.; Ramsay, M.; Mckenna-Lawson, S. Utilizing the mental health nursing workforce: A scoping review of mental health nursing clinical roles and identities. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs.; 2022; 31, pp. 796-822.
12. Abt, M.; Lequin, P.; Bobo, M.L.; Vispo Cid Perrottet, T.; Pasquier, J.; Ortoleva Bucher, C. The scope of nursing practice in a psychiatric unit: A time and motion study. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs.; 2022; 29, pp. 297-306.
13. Cranage, K.; Foster, K. Mental health nurses’ experience of challenging workplace situations: A qualitative descriptive study. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs.; 2022; 31, pp. 665-676.
14. Ward-Miller, S.; Farley, E.M.; Espinosa, L.; Brous, M.E.; Giorgi-Cipriano, J.; Ferguson, J. Psychiatric mental health nursing in the international year of the nurse and COVID-19: One hospital’s perspective on resilience and innovation—Past, present and future. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs.; 2021; 35, pp. 303-310. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33966797]
15. Ardıç, M.; Ünal, Ö.; Türktemiz, H. The effect of stress levels of nurses on performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of motivation. J. Res. Nurs.; 2022; 27, pp. 330-340. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35837263]
16. Babapour, A.R.; Gahassab-Mozaffari, N.; Fathnezhad-Kazemi, A. Nurses’ job stress and its impact on quality of life and caring behaviors: A cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs.; 2022; 21, 75. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35361204]
17. Kobayashi, Y.; Oe, M.; Ishida, T.; Matsuoka, M.; Chiba, H.; Uchimura, N. Workplace violence and its effects on burnout and secondary traumatic stress among mental healthcare nurses in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 2747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082747]
18. Rafiei, S.; Souri, S.; Nejatifar, Z.; Amerzadeh, M. The moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between occupational stress and mental health issues among nurses. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 15913. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66357-7]
19. Cilia Vincenti, S.; Grech, P.; Scerri, J. Psychiatric hospital nurses’ attitudes towards trauma-informed care. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs.; 2022; 29, pp. 75-85. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33639009]
20. Lu, H.; Zhao, Y.; While, A. Job satisfaction among hospital nurses: A literature review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.; 2019; 94, pp. 21-31. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30928718][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.01.011]
21. Suleiman-Martos, N.; Albendín-García, L.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Vargas-Román, K.; Ramirez-Baena, L.; Ortega-Campos, E.; De La Fuente-Solana, E.I. Prevalence and Predictors of Burnout in Midwives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.; 2020; 17, 641.
22. Almalki, A.E.; Alghamdi, H.S.N.; Bakhadlag, G.T.H. The relationship between burnout, depression and anxiety among nurses in a psychiatric unit. Int. J. Biosci.; 2024; 24, pp. 236-244.
23. Spaan, P.; van den Boogert, F.; Bouman, Y.H.A.; Hoogendijk, W.J.G.; Roza, S.J. How are you coping? Stress, coping, burnout, and aggression in forensic mental healthcare workers. Front. Psychol.; 2024; 14, 1301878.
24. De Looff, P.; Nijman, H.; Didden, R.; Embregts, P. Burnout symptoms in forensic mental health nurses: Results from a longitudinal study. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs.; 2018; 25, pp. 506-516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12496]
25. Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Velando-Soriano, A.; Membrive-Jiménez, M.J.; Ramírez-Baena, L.; Aguayo-Estremera, R.; Ortega-Campos, E.; Cañadas-De la Fuente, G.E. Prevalence and levels of burnout in nursing students: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Nurse Educ. Pract.; 2023; 72, 103753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103753]
26. Freudenberger, H.J. Burnout Inventory. J. Soc. Issues; 1974; 30, pp. 159-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x]
27. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E.; Leiter, M.P. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual; 3rd ed. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 191-217.
28. Vargas-Benítez, M.Á.; Izquierdo-Espín, F.J.; Castro-Martínez, N.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Albendín-García, L.; Velando-Soriano, A.; Cañadas-De la Fuente, G.A. Burnout syndrome and work engagement in nursing staff: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Med.; 2023; 10, 1125133. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37529242]
29. Ramírez-Elvira, S.; Romero-Béjar, J.L.; Suleiman-Martos, N.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Monsalve-Reyes, C.; Cañadas-De la Fuente, G.A.; Albendín-García, L. Prevalence, Risk Factors and Burnout Levels in Intensive Care Unit Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 11432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111432]
30. Yang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Guo, Y.; Wang, R.; Xie, F. Burnout among Nurses: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Global Publications. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag.; 2024; 17, pp. 1727-1739. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38681974]
31. Juczyński, Z.; Ogińska-Bulik, N. Narzędzia Pomiaru Stresu i Radzenia Sobie ze Stresem; Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego: Warsaw, Poland, 2012.
32. Pasikowski, T. Polska Adaptacja Kwestionariusza Maslach Burnout Inventory; Sęk, H. Wypalenie zawodowe—Przyczyny, mechanizmy, zapobieganie PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2004.
33. Maslach, C.; Leiter, M. Prawda o Wypaleniu Zawodowym, co Robić ze Stresem w Organizacji; PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2011.
34. Ghavidel, F.; Fallahi-Khoshknab, M.; Molavynejad, S.; Zarea, K. The role of organizational factors in nurse burnout: Experiences from Iranian nurses working in psychiatric wards. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care; 2019; 8, pp. 3893-3899. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_615_19]
35. Newman, C.R.; Jackson, J.; Macleod, S.; Eason, M. A Survey of Stress and Burnout in Forensic Mental Health Nursing. J. Forensic. Nurs.; 2020; 16, pp. 161-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000271] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31977515]
36. Hsieh, H.F.; Liu, Y.; Hsu, H.-T.; Ma, S.C.; Wang, H.H.; Ko, C.-H. Relations between Stress and Depressive Symptoms in Psychiatric Nurses: The Mediating Effects of Sleep Quality and Occupational Burnout. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 7327.
37. Jin, R. Job satisfaction and burnout of psychiatric nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic in China-the moderation of family support. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 1006518.
38. Tununu, A.F.; Martin, P. Prevalence of burnout among nurses working at a psychiatric hospital in the Western Cape. Curationis; 2020; 43, pp. e1-e7. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32787430]
39. Alenezi, A.; McAndrew, S.; Fallon, P. Burning out physical and emotional fatigue: Evaluating the effects of a programme aimed at reducing burnout among mental health nurses. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs.; 2019; 28, pp. 1045-1055. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/inm.12608]
40. Konstantinou, A.K.; Bonotis, K.; Sokratous, M.; Siokas, V.; Dardiotis, E. Burnout evaluation and potential predictors in a Greek cohort of mental health nurses. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs.; 2018; 32, pp. 449-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2018.01.002]
41. Tang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, R.; Lu, Q. The relationship between psychiatric nurses’ perceived organizational support and job burnout: Mediating role of psychological capital. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 14, 1099687. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36895741]
42. Karanikola, M.N.; Papathanassoglou, E.E. Exploration of the burnout syndrome occurrence among mental health nurses in Cyprus. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs.; 2013; 27, pp. 319-326. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24238013][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2013.08.004]
43. Khatatbeh, H.; Pakai, A.; Al-Dwaikat, T.; Onchonga, D.; Amer, F.; Prémusz, V.; Oláh, A. Nurses’ burnout and quality of life: A systematic review and critical analysis of measures used. Nurs. Open; 2022; 9, pp. 1564-1574. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33991408]
44. Villarante, D.M.; O’Donoghue, S.C.; Medeiros, M.; Milton, E.; Walsh, K.; O’Donoghue, A.L.; Celi, L.A.; Hayes, M.M.; Dilibero, J. A National Survey of Stress and Burnout in Critical Care Nurses: A Prepandemic Study. Dimens. Crit. Care Nurs.; 2023; 42, pp. 248-254. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37523722]
45. Piotrowska, A.; Lisowska, A.; Twardak, I.; Włostowska, K.; Uchmanowicz, I.; Mess, E. Determinants Affecting the Rationing of Nursing Care and Professional Burnout among Oncology Nurses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 7180. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35742428]
46. Jun, J.; Ojemeni, M.M.; Kalamani, R.; Tong, J.; Crecelius, M.L. Relationship between nurse burnout, patient and organizational outcomes: Systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud.; 2021; 119, 103933. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33901940][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103933]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Work-related stress has been linked to various negative outcomes among healthcare professionals. For nurses, stress can arise from numerous sources, including their interactions with patients. It is often perceived that nurses working in psychiatric hospitals experience greater stress and occupational burnout compared to nurses working in somatic hospitals. However, there is limited research addressing this specific issue. To bridge this gap, a study was conducted to compare the stress levels of nurses working in a psychiatric hospital and a somatic hospital within the same city. Background/Objectives: The aim of this paper was to report on the prevalence of stress and burnout among surveyed nurses employed in a somatic hospital and in a psychiatric hospital. Methods: The study group consisted of a total of 379 nurses—189 employed at a somatic hospital and 190 employed at a psychiatric hospital. The primary test used for statistical analyses was the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test for assessing differences. Additionally, correlations between ordinal or quantitative variables were analyzed using Spearman’s rho coefficient. Results: Among respondents working at a somatic hospital, the average levels of occupational burnout, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and sense of personal accomplishment were moderate. Similar results were observed among respondents employed at a psychiatric hospital. Conclusions: The workplace does not significantly differentiate professional burnout or coping strategies among the nurses surveyed. Among nurses working in hospitals for somatic patients, levels of depersonalization, turning to religion, and seeking support increase with age and seniority. In contrast, psychiatric nurses show higher levels of emotional exhaustion and overall MBI burnout as they age.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Kowalczuk, Krystyna 2
; Kadučáková, Helena 3
; Lehotská, Mária 4 ; Papp, Katalina 5 ; Majchrowicz, Bożena 6 1 Department of Nursing, Institute of Health Protection, The Bronisław Markiewicz Academy of Applied Sciences, 37-500 Jarosław, Poland
2 Department of Integrated Medical Care, Medical University of Białystok, 15-222 Białystok, Poland;
3 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Catholic University in Ružomberok, 034 01 Ružomberok, Slovakia;
4 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Catholic University in Ružomberok, 034 01 Ružomberok, Slovakia;
5 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary;
6 Department of Nursing, Institute of Health Protection, State Academy of Applied Sciences, 37-700 Przemyśl, Poland;