Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT04874337
NCT04874337
Unknown
Not Applicable

In Nursing Students, The Effect of Disaster Nursing Training Program on General Disaster Preparedness Belief State, Disaster Response Self-Efficiency and Psychological Resilience

Istanbul Kent University1 site in 1 country140 target enrollmentMay 1, 2021

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
General Disaster Preparedness Belief State
Sponsor
Istanbul Kent University
Enrollment
140
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
The Disaster Response Self-Efficacy Scale
Last Updated
4 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

In order to respond correctly to disasters, medical teams must have the necessary training and sufficient equipment. However, in many countries, disaster nursing education is not adequately included in nursing curricula (Kalanlar and Kublai, 2015). This is seen as an important situation affecting the capacity of nurses to respond to disasters. In particular, it is emphasized that providing disaster nursing and management training to nurse students will have positive consequences for disaster-affected individuals and communities, such as reduced death rates, improved health services, and reduced disaster-related costs (Kalanlar and Kublai, 2015). For this reason, disaster preparation of both nurses and student nurses is important for combating disasters.

It has been reported that nursing students provide assistance in issues such as monitoring the physical and psychological health of disaster victims, improving hygiene, and health counseling, using the knowledge and skills acquired in vocational education (Kashiwaba and Okudera, 2014; Tomizawa et al., 2014). Some studies have shown that student nurses do not have sufficient knowledge and skills in disaster preparedness and response (Schmidt et al., 2011; Smithers et al., 2020). However, in most schools where the curricula of domestic nursing schools are examined, disaster nursing courses are conducted as electives rather than majors. Despite these limitations, nursing students tops the teams that have a key role in a potential disaster or disaster (Satoh et al., 2016). Therefore, groups that can contribute during disaster response must have sufficient knowledge and skills. Because the lack of experience during intervention leads to stress and fear of intervening in disasters, while the belief that it is adequately prepared for disaster situations increases confidence in intervening in disasters. To overcome the lack of experience in Disaster Response, Education that will provide insight into the reality of disaster response is important.

To achieve the goal of training medical personnel capable of disaster response, a variety of training methods are needed, such as not only in-depth theory training, but also Case-Based Learning and practice in simulated situations with a multidisciplinary approach. In this context, the education model that stands out in the literature is the disaster nursing and management model developed by Jening. Jenning's disaster nursing management model was developed directly for Nurse students and describes the nurse's duties at each stage of Disaster Management. It is a model developed to explain disaster nursing to students and to provide them with knowledge about disaster management. In this aspect, the model differs from other disaster management models (Jennings Sanders, 2004).

The aim of this research is to evaluate the impact of disaster nursing and management education given to students using Jenning's disaster nursing and management model on general disaster preparedness belief state, disaster response self-efficiency and psychological resilience of students.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
May 1, 2021
End Date
June 20, 2021
Last Updated
4 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Parallel
Sex
All

Investigators

Sponsor
Istanbul Kent University
Responsible Party
Sponsor

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Nursing students aged 18 and over, who volunteer for the study, do not have any communication problems, do not take first and emergency courses will be included in the study

Exclusion Criteria

  • Withdraw from study, Declined to participate,

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

The Disaster Response Self-Efficacy Scale

Time Frame: 3 weeks

The Disaster Response Self-Efficacy Scale was developed in 2017 by Hong-Yan Li et al. Validity and reliability studies of the Turkish form of the scale were conducted by Koca et al. (2018). It consisted of a total of 19 items and 3 sub-dimensions, and the answers were taken with a likert scale of 5.(1=no self-confidence, 2=basically no self-confidence, 3=some self-confidence, 4=basically self-confidence, 5 = full self-confidence). High scores indicate that disaster response self-sufficiency is high. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.96. For on-site rescue competency, disaster psychological nursing competency, disaster role quality and adaptation competency subscales, it was 0.93.

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

Time Frame: 3 weeks

This self-reporting instrument developed by Smith et al. (2008) to measure the psychological well-being of individuals. The Turkish adaptation and psychometric studies of the scale were performed by Tayfun Doğan on 295 university students (2015). Explanatory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the scale had a single-factor structure. The high scores obtained from the scale after translating the items coded in reverse order in the scale (items 2, 4 and 6) indicate a high psychological strength. Factor analysis was performed to determine the construct validity of the scale. The factor loads related to the items were found to be between 0.68 and 0.91 (Doğan, 2015).

General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale

Time Frame: 3 weeks

The General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale was developed in 2018 by Inal et al. The scale based on the Health Belief model measures belief in disaster preparedness. The scale, consisting of 31 items, has 6 sub-dimensions. These are self efficacy (8 items), cues to action (5 items), perceived susceptibility (6 items), perceived barriers (6 items), perceived benefits (3 items) and perceived severity (3 items). The scale has no breakpoint. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the subscales ranged from 0.90 to 0.74. In the study, the cronbach alpha (α) value of the scale was found to be 0.81. The scale's scoring system is coded for each expression as (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) disagree, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree. The minimum score is 31 points and the maximum is 155 points.

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials