The paper 'Psychological and Physiological Well-Being of Health Practitioners' is a delightful example of a research proposal on psychology.
There was a study that was conducted to help determine whether traditional methods or innovation interventions at work are ways of alleviating stress at work. The participants were based on three programs that are control program (n=84), innovative intervention (N=52) and finally the traditional stress alleviation program (n=66). The traditional program was related to positive improvements in stress management and they were satisfied at work. The intervention that involves innovative ideas was associated with minimal work stress.
Most people have to cope with stress at their workplace which leads to the physiological and psychological fitness of the human body. Dealing with the strain problems at work involves coping with the problem that leads to the stressor rather adapting the stressor aspects by transforming barriers to work and surrounding pressures that might affect the employees (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964). Early literature findings assumed that people adapt to stressful and strenuous work conditions and they have accomplished so little to transform the environments. Innovative ideas and traditional techniques for transforming colleague relationships result in improvements in the workplace.
The focus of this study was to determine if the innovative ideas used as interventions at the workplace manages the psychological and physiological well-being of the health practitioners. The innovative ideas at the workplace are transforming work associations and coming up with new work techniques and schedules. The approach is very effective in managing stress because it allows the workers to transform and improve their surroundings making them less strenuous.
Additionally, the other objective was to examine if the traditional methods at work improve the stress management initiatives of the health care practitioners based in the United Kingdom. The research, in this case, evaluated the process variables which are the traditional methods of controlling stress and the outcome variables which are the levels of stress.
The theoretical background determines the coping approaches aimed at controlling the emotions that are influenced by stressors and there are efforts made to control or transform the challenges that lead to the stress. Coping with emotions is possible to be adapted when there is an assurance that there is no consequence in transforming threatening, harmful or challenging surrounding conditions. There are several approaches that permit innovative copying, for instance, the individual-environment fit approach of stress management. The method entails the level to which the abilities and skills of a person correspond with the requirements and demands of the job. Additionally, it involves the level to which the surroundings provide for the needs of a person. If there is no correspondence in either of the conditions the well-being of the health practitioner and as a result, there might be health strains.
The main job stressors for the health practitioners could be medication errors, minimal experience, lack of confidence in their knowledge and skills in the medical field, lack of support and teamwork, understaffing, workload acceleration and coping with the death of patients. The work demand decision model is associated with an effect on the psychological stress levels. The employees that have a high extent of decision latitude are in a better position to control their work stressors in the workplace (Karasek’s 1979, 1981). According to Nichoson’s (1984) literature, people may try to adopt the workplace environment or themselves when penetrating into the new jobs. The adaptations to a self-include revision of reference frames and identity associated values. On the other hand, adaptations related to the environment may entail transformations of approaches, interpersonal associations, and task objectives.
There were two programs that were used to facilitate the research design of this study; Innovation Promotion Programs (IPP) and Traditional stress management programs (SMP). The table 1 below has details on the research design of this study. The variable T1 represents the baseline measures that were collected three months in advance before the interventions, there was a follow up of 3 months after the interventions which were represented by T2 and another follow up a year later which was represented by T3. The characters ‘O’ in the table represent observations while on the other hand X represents interventions. It should be noted that follow-ups are equivalent to T1+ 15 months, post-treatments are equivalent to T1+9 months and treatments are equivalent to T1+ 3 months. The table 1 below provides the details. The qualification for anyone to participate in the research study was that they should have a minimum of year experience in the profession of nursing, they should be employed fully as nurses, they should be registered nurse or they can be volunteering nurses.
The research study was conducted in a hospital. There were a total of 6 IPPs (n=52) and 7 SMPs (n=66) who participated in the study. The approximate sizes of the groups for both the IPPs, the SMPs, and the control group was nine. Out of the SMPs, three consisted of community health practitioners and health visitors which was the same case with three of the IPPs. The participants of the control group totaled 84. There was a remainder of three SMPs and three IPPs who were mixed hospital staff that included ward clerics, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and nurses.
The SMPs were controlled by single or double facilitators that were derived from a group of nine eligible clinical psychologists and an intern who was supervised. All the facilitators were selected by the Health Authority. It should be noted that the IPP facilitator was the main author that had previous experience in nursing health care. There was a learning program that was inevitable and large workshops were very interactive. On the other hand, there were organization limitations and other practical challenges, for instance, the process of the staff being available at the most suitable times so it was impossible to allocate randomly the staff members to a variety of the states in the study hence there was a need for use of the quasi-experimental design.
As a result, the participants were selected into different states that are IPP or SMP on the basis of their location at work. This created biasness because it did not allow participants that work at the same workplace from involving themselves in interventions that are contrasting. As a result, there was a likelihood of hazards to internal validity for instance imitation of methods or diffusion between treatments because of the mixture of the participating health care practitioners at work. Additionally, it should be noted that volunteers were motivated by their specific managers to participate therefore, they minimized the likelihood of biasness of self-selection.
The test that was used in this study was Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to evaluate the post-intervention transformations with the dependent variable scores as T2 and T3 with their matching T1 scores as the covariates. The main challenge was that there were low sample sizes that are associated with low statistical power. This minimizes the likelihood of determining the differences that exist between the groups. Subsequently, significant information on T2 and T1 derived from this intervention program with three-time locations may be excluded in the analyses. As a result, there is a high chance of occurrence of type II error.
The solution is to first utilize the ANCOVA that involves all-time points then further using ANCOVA tests that evaluate T2 and T1 as covariates which should be the same situation for T3 and T1 as covariates. This strategy minimizes the likelihood of overlooking important findings at T2 being assumed because of listwise deletion. Additionally, this was to correct the errors that were due to listwise deletion. Also, they employed other methods to cope with data that is missing by filling the missing values. However, the process might lead to error variance which may, in turn, lead to avoiding error variance.
The research has distinguished between different methods in managing stress at the workplace. The measures of the processes have been connected between and within the group’s variances of the outcomes. There were many outcome variables that were used and there was a monitoring period up to a year after the interventions. There were developments that were detected in the SMP state on the scores also there was a job satisfaction report as compared to the IPP participants. There was proof that session process measures clarified between-group variance that was in outcome.
I would recommend that in the next study the volunteers should be included in the study because more information and knowledge are required to enable the stress management interventions to benefit. Additionally, they should administer job satisfaction scales to the control group so that there is no restriction during analysis for the values between groups. Finally, innovative and traditional stress control methods are linked to improvements in the brains psychologically. However, after a year the interventions showed that the improvements stagnated thus; there need to approach that control the intervention impact.