| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: randomised controlled trial
Study grouping: parallel group |
| Participants |
Baseline characteristics
Compassion fatigue resiliency I
Age in years (mean ± SD): 25.0 ± 5.1 Sex (N (% female)): 44 (90%) Sample size: 34 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 3.0 ± 3.7
Compassion fatigue resiliency II
Age in years (mean ± SD): 27.8 ± 5.3 Sex (N (% female)): 32 (94%) Sample size: 49 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 5.6 ± 5.7
Control (no intervention)
Age in years (mean ± SD): 27.2 ± 5.3 Sex (N (% female)): 36 (86%) Sample size: 42 Years of experience (mean ± SD): 4.9 ± 4.7
Overall
Age in years (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 112 (90%) Sample size: 125 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR
Included criteria: nurses working in inpatient oncology–haematology, outpatient chemotherapy, or BMT unit
Excluded criteria: providing care for paediatric oncology patients, being a nurse manager, not providing direct patient care
Pretreatment: there was a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, total work hours per week, total years of professional experience, total years of oncology experience, level of received social support, and marital status (P < 0.05). The comparison of the mean scores for nurses’ compassion satisfaction P = 0.036
Compliance rate: 100%
Response rate: NR
Type of healthcare worker: nurses |
| Interventions |
Intervention characteristics
Compassion fatigue resiliency I
Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Explain the historical development of compassion fatigue among caregivers, Define the developmental process of compassion fatigue, specify the risk factors for compassion fatigue, Explain the symptoms of compassion fatigue, Raise awareness about their personal history, Explain the concept of stress and its impact on the body, Apply compassion fatigue resilience skills acquired in the program, Professionally create a self‐directed resilience plan. The number of sessions: 2 Duration of each session on average: 5 hours Duration of the entire intervention: 2 days Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: study's principal investigator had participated online in a CFRP, developed by Eric Gentry (Licensed Mental Health Counsellor) (2002), and received the certificate, and then conducted the pro‐gram with the nurses Intervention form: Meetings were held with each institution's directorate of nursing services to determine the training schedules and content. The schedules were planned in accordance with the hospital administration's preferences and by taking nurses’ busy schedules into consideration
Compassion fatigue resiliency II
Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Explain the historical development of compassion fatigue among caregivers, Define the developmental process of compassion fatigue, Specify the risk factors for compassion fatigue, Explain the symptoms of compassion fatigue, Raise awareness about their personal history, Explain the concept of stress and its impact on the body, Apply compassion fatigue resilience skills acquired in the program, Professionally create a self‐directed resilience plan. The number of sessions: 5 Duration of each session on average: 2 hours Duration of the entire intervention: 5 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer : study's principal investigator had participated online in a CFRP, developed by Eric Gentry (Licensed Mental Health Counsellor) (2002), and received the certificate, and then conducted the pro‐gram with the nurses Intervention form: Meetings were held with each institution's directorate of nursing services to determine the training schedules and content. The schedules were planned in accordance with the hospital administration's preferences and by taking nurses’ busy schedules into consideration
Control (no intervention)
Type of the intervention: NA Description of the intervention: NA The number of sessions: NA Duration of each session on average: NA Duration of the entire intervention: NA Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: NA Intervention deliverer: NA Intervention form: NA
|
| Outcomes |
Professional quality of life scale‐IV ‐ Compassion fatigue
Professional quality of life scale‐IV ‐ Burnout
Professional quality of life scale‐IV ‐ Compassion satisfaction
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
|
| Identification |
Sponsorship source: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors
Country: Turkey
Setting: Oncology–haematology inpatient services, outpatient chemotherapy units, and bone marrow transplant (BMT) units of three private hospitals in Istanbul
Comments: NR
Authors name: Tuğba Pehlivan
Institution: Koç University Hospital
Email: tpehlivan14@ku.edu.tr
Address: Istanbul, Turkey.
Time period: January 2017 January 2019 |
| Notes |
We kindly got the mean and SD for the primary outcome from author T. Pehlivan.
PSS included in analysis 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. Intervention groups combined to create a single pair‐wise comparison |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Quote: "Nurses were randomly assigned to the Experimental I, Experimental II, or control group"
Sequence generation process insufficiently described. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Difficult to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possible foresee assignment. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Participants were not blinded. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Participants were not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Low number of participants that filled in the one‐year follow‐up questionnaire. Lost to follow‐up 57/125 (45%). Reasons provided. Not sure whether loss to follow‐up was at random. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Outcomes reported according to trial registration. |
| Other bias |
Unclear risk |
Not able to assess response rate. |
