Correction to: “To Normalize is to Impose a Requirement on an Existence.” Why Health Professionals Should Think Twice Before Using the Term “Normal” With Patients

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Die Corona-Pandemie führte zu einer starken Beanspruchung von Health Professionals, deren allgemeine berufliche Situation mit einem hohem Belastungserleben verbunden ist. Quantitative Daten zum Belastungserleben der im Gesundheitswesen Tätigen in der Corona-Pandemie und mögliche Auswirkungen auf das Arbeitsengagement fehlen bis dato für Deutschland. Methode: Mittels einer Querschnittsbefragung wurden das Stresserleben, die Sorge um die Gesundheit und das Arbeitsengagement von Health Professionals deutschlandweit erhoben. Das „snapshot survey“ nutzte neben selbst entwickelten Fragen Items eines validierten Instrumentes zur Erfassung des Arbeitsengagements. Über soziale Medien wurden in Form einer Gelegenheitsstichprobe Health Professionals zur Teilnahme eingeladen. Es konnten 1168 gültige Fälle ausgewertet werden. Die Teilnehmenden waren mehrheitlich Pflegende (80 %, n = 855). Ergebnisse: Es zeigt sich, dass Health Professionals mit Direktkontakt zu COVID-19-Erkrankten im Gegensatz zu Befragten ohne Kontakt ein höheres Stresslevel angeben (MW = 3,81, SD = 1,09 vs. MW = 3,44, SD = 1,12, t(1062) = 5,40, p < 0,001; ε = 0,33), sich am meisten Sorgen um die Gesundheit ihrer Angehörigen sowie von Freundinnen und Freunden machen und dass diese Sorgen größer als bei Health Professionals ohne Kontakt sind (MW = 4,45, SD = 0,84 vs. MW = 4,19, SD = 0,94, t(1062) = 4,74, p < 0,001; ε = 0,29). Die Korrelationsanalysen (r = –0,182, p < 0,001) und die multiple Regressionsanalyse (β = –0,182, p < 0,001) ergaben, dass das Arbeitsengagement mit steigendem, pandemiebedingtem Stress abnimmt. Diskussion: Es zeigen sich theoriekonforme Zusammenhänge zwischen Anforderungen, Stresserleben und Arbeitsengagement. Im Vergleich zu früheren Studien ist das Arbeitsengagement in der Stichprobe gering. Zur Reduktion psychischer Belastungsfaktoren in einer Pandemie liegen vielfältige Empfehlungen vor, die nun auch in der Breite für Deutschland zur Anwendung kommen sollten. Hierzu zählen beispielsweise pandemiespezifische Präventionspläne oder die Schaffung eines sanktionsfreien Arbeitsumfeldes.

Download Full-text

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Stigma of Suicide Attempt Survivors

Crisis ◽

10.1027/0227-5910/a000413 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (2) ◽

pp. 73-81 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Lindsay L. Sheehan ◽

Patrick W. Corrigan ◽

Maya A. Al-Khouja ◽

Keyword(s):

Suicide Attempt ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Attempted Suicide ◽

Community Based Participatory Research ◽

Public Stigma ◽

Suicide Method ◽

Community Based ◽

Stakeholder Perspectives ◽

Personal Experiences ◽

Prejudice And Discrimination

Abstract. Background: Past scholarly efforts to describe and measure the stigma surrounding suicide have largely viewed suicide stigma from the perspective of the general public. Aims: In the spirit of community-based participatory research (CBPR), the current study brought together a diverse stakeholder team to qualitatively investigate the suicide stigma as experienced by those most intimately affected by suicide. Method: Seven focus groups (n = 62) were conducted with suicide attempt survivors, family members of those who died by suicide, and suicide loss therapists. Results: Themes were derived for stereotypes (n = 30), prejudice (n = 3), and discrimination (n = 4). People who attempted suicide were seen as attention-seeking, selfish, incompetent, emotionally weak, and immoral. Participants described personal experiences of prejudice and discrimination, including those with health professionals. Conclusion: Participants experienced public stigma, self-stigma, and label avoidance. Analyses reveal that the stigma of suicide shares similarities with stereotypes of mental illness, but also includes some important differences. Attempt survivors may be subject to double stigma, which impedes recovery and access to care.

Download Full-text

Facing a Patient Who Seeks Help After a Suicide Attempt

Crisis ◽

10.1027/0227-5910/a000242 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 35 (2) ◽

pp. 110-122 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Inês Areal Rothes ◽

Margarida Rangel Henriques ◽

Joana Barreiros Leal ◽

Marina Serra Lemos

Keyword(s):

Health Professionals ◽

Suicide Attempts ◽

Self Report ◽

Suicidal Patient ◽

Emotional Difficulties ◽

Specific Training ◽

Patient Suicide ◽

Professional Groups ◽

Professional Characteristics ◽

Suicidal Patients

Background: Although intervention with suicidal patients is one of the hardest tasks in clinical practice, little is known about health professionals’ perceptions about the difficulties of working with suicidal patients. Aims: The aims of this study were to: (1) describe the difficulties of professionals facing a suicidal patient; (2) analyze the differences in difficulties according to the sociodemographic and professional characteristics of the health professionals; and (3) identify the health professionals’ perceived skills and thoughts on the need for training in suicide. Method: A self-report questionnaire developed for this purpose was filled out by 196 health professionals. Exploratory principal components analyses were used. Results: Four factors were found: technical difficulties; emotional difficulties; relational and communicational difficulties; and family-approaching and logistic difficulties. Differences were found between professionals who had or did not have training in suicide, between professional groups, and between the number of patient suicide attempts. Sixty percent of the participants reported a personal need for training and 85% thought it was fundamental to implement training plans targeted at health professionals. Conclusion: Specific training is fundamental. Experiential and active methodologies should be used and technical, relational, and emotional questions must be included in the training syllabus.

Download Full-text