For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
16
views
26
references
 Top references
cited by
5
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      160
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating the impact of an assertiveness communication training programme for Japanese nursing students: A quasi‐experimental study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          To examine the impact of an assertiveness communication training programme on Japanese nursing students’ level of assertiveness and intention to speak up when concerned about patient safety.

          Design

          A quasi‐experimental design with two parallel groups was used.

          Methods

          Third‐year nursing students from two Japanese educational institutions were allocated to an intervention and control group. The intervention group completed the Theory of Planned Behaviour–Assertive Communication Questionnaire and the Japanese version of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule after attending assertive communication workshops. The second group completed the surveys before attending the workshop and were referred as the control group. Data were collected in December 2017–January 2018.

          Results

          A total of 123 out of 150 nursing students completed the surveys. Following the assertiveness communication training programme, a higher percentage of students from the intervention group demonstrated the intention to speak up. The intervention group also displayed higher levels of assertiveness, although the results were not statistically significant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: a literature review

          Ayako Okuyama, Cordula Wagner, Bart Bijnen (2014)
          Background Speaking up is important for patient safety, but often, health care professionals hesitate to voice concerns. Understanding the influencing factors can help to improve speaking-up behaviour and team communication. This review focused on health care professionals’ speaking-up behaviour for patient safety and aimed at (1) assessing the effectiveness of speaking up, (2) evaluating the effectiveness of speaking-up training, (3) identifying the factors influencing speaking-up behaviour, and (4) developing a model for speaking-up behaviour. Methods Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for English articles describing health care professionals’ speaking-up behaviour as well as those evaluating the relationship between speaking up and patient safety. Influencing factors were identified and then integrated into a model of voicing behaviour. Results In total, 26 studies were identified in 27 articles. Some indicated that hesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor in communication errors and that training can improve speaking-up behaviour. Many influencing factors were found: (1) the motivation to speak up, such as the perceived risk for patients, and the ambiguity or clarity of the clinical situation; (2) contextual factors, such as hospital administrative support, interdisciplinary policy-making, team work and relationship between other team members, and attitude of leaders/superiors; (3) individual factors, such as job satisfaction, responsibility toward patients, responsibility as professionals, confidence based on experience, communication skills, and educational background; (4) the perceived efficacy of speaking up, such as lack of impact and personal control; (5) the perceived safety of speaking up, such as fear for the responses of others and conflict and concerns over appearing incompetent; and (6) tactics and targets, such as collecting facts, showing positive intent, and selecting the person who has spoken up. Conclusions Hesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor to communication errors. Our model helps us to understand how health care professionals think about voicing their concerns. Further research is required to investigate the relative importance of different factors.
          Article 0 comments Cited 119 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Language barriers and qualitative nursing research: methodological considerations.

            A. Squires (2008)
            This review of the literature synthesizes methodological recommendations for the use of translators and interpreters in cross-language qualitative research. Cross-language qualitative research involves the use of interpreters and translators to mediate a language barrier between researchers and participants. Qualitative nurse researchers successfully address language barriers between themselves and their participants when they systematically plan for how they will use interpreters and translators throughout the research process. Experienced qualitative researchers recognize that translators can generate qualitative data through translation processes and by participating in data analysis. Failure to address language barriers and the methodological challenges they present threatens the credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of cross-language qualitative nursing research. Through a synthesis of the cross-language qualitative methods literature, this article reviews the basics of language competence, translator and interpreter qualifications, and roles for each kind of qualitative research approach. Methodological and ethical considerations are also provided. By systematically addressing the methodological challenges cross-language research presents, nurse researchers can produce better evidence for nursing practice and policy making when working across different language groups. Findings from qualitative studies will also accurately represent the experiences of the participants without concern that the meaning was lost in translation.
            Article 0 comments Cited 42 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Teaching teamwork during the Neonatal Resuscitation Program: a randomized trial.

              Timothy J. Sexton, John Tyson, John Thomas Kelsall … (2007)
              To add a team training and human error curriculum to the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) and measure its effect on teamwork. We hypothesized that teams that received the new course would exhibit more teamwork behaviors than those in the standard NRP course. Interns were randomized to receive NRP with team training or standard NRP, then video recorded when they performed simulated resuscitations at the end of the day-long course. Outcomes were assessed by observers blinded to study arm allocation and included the frequency or duration of six team behaviors: inquiry, information sharing, assertion, evaluation of plans, workload management and vigilance. The interns in the NRP with team training group exhibited more frequent team behaviors (number of episodes per minute (95% CI)) than interns in the control group: information sharing 1.06 (0.24, 1.17) vs 0.13 (0.00, 0.43); inquiry 0.35 (0.11, 0.42) vs 0.09 (0.00, 0.10); assertion 1.80 (1.21, 2.25) vs 0.64 (0.26, 0.91); and any team behavior 3.34 (2.26, 4.11) vs 1.03 (0.48, 1.30) (P-values <0.008 for all comparisons). Vigilance and workload management were practiced throughout the entire simulated code by nearly all the teams in the NRP with team training group (100% for vigilance and 88% for workload management) vs only 53 and 20% of the teams in the standard NRP. No difference was detected in the frequency of evaluation of plans. Compared with the standard NRP, NRP with a teamwork and human error curriculum led interns to exhibit more team behaviors during simulated resuscitations.
              Article 0 comments Cited 38 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Mieko Omura:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1829-7223
                mieko.omura@uon.edu.au
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Nurs Open
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Nurs Open
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1002/(ISSN)2054-1058
                Journal ID (publisher-id): NOP2
                Title: Nursing Open
                Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2054-1058
                Publication date (Electronic): 09 December 2018
                Publication date Collection: April 2019
                Volume: 6
                Issue: 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/nop2.2019.6.issue-2 )
                Pages: 463-472
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Medicine The University of Newcastle Callaghan New South Wales Australia
                [ 2 ] Faculty of Health University of Technology Sydney Ultimo New South Wales Australia
                [ 3 ] Faculty of Nursing Chiang Mai University Chiang Mai Thailand
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Mieko Omura, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

                Email: mieko.omura@ 123456uon.edu.au

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1829-7223
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4279-8957
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0673-1763
                Article
                Publisher ID: NOP2228
                DOI: 10.1002/nop2.228
                PMC ID: 6419109
                PubMed ID: 30918697
                SO-VID: 8bfa8ff2-9d7d-4abb-b0bb-1f08af3de9b8
                Copyright © © 2018 The Authors. Nursing Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
                License:

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 10 July 2018
                Date revision received : 06 October 2018
                Date accepted : 12 November 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 6, Pages: 10, Words: 6908
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Subject: Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                source-schema-version-number 2.0
                component-id nop2228
                cover-date April 2019
                details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.1 mode:remove_FC converted:15.03.2019

                Keywords: assertiveness,attitude,communication,education,japan,nursing,speak up,student,theory of planned behaviour,training
                Data availability:
                Keywords: assertiveness, attitude, communication, education, japan, nursing, speak up, student, theory of planned behaviour, training

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content160

                See all similar

                Cited by5

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors358

                See all reference authors