Risk Assessment of Workplace Violence Against Nurses: How Data Collection Methods Influence Results-A Swedish and Italian Cross-Sectional Study

针对护士的工作场所暴力风险评估:数据收集方法如何影响结果——一项瑞典和意大利的横断面研究

阅读:1

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Workplace violence (WV) against healthcare workers (HCWs) is a major hazard all over the world. Prevention requires a reliable risk assessment. The rate of HCWs reporting a violent event varies considerably across multi-year retrospective studies compared to periodic surveys. We conducted a rapid observational study to demonstrate that data collection methods are more important than socio-cultural and healthcare organizational differences in determining the frequency of reported violence. Methods: In June 2025, in a cross-sectional observational comparison, we examined a total of 236 nurses divided into three groups: the first two were recruited online from Brescia (Italy) and Trollhättan (Sweden), while the third group was composed of Latium (Italy) nurses participating in a sleep health promotion program who answered the same questions on WV online. All the workers reported the frequency of violent incidents experienced in the previous 12 months using the Violent Incident Form (VIF), occupational stress using the Effort/Reward Imbalance questionnaire (ERI), and work ability via the Work Ability Score (WAS). Results: In the three samples, WV was correlated positively with stress and inversely with work ability (p < 0.01), while no significant difference was found between Italian and Swedish nurses in relation to the spot surveys. The nurses questioned directly about WV were significantly younger and reported significantly higher rates of physical aggression (28% vs. 5%, p < 0.001) and all forms of violence (73% vs. 20%, p < 0.001) than those questioned indirectly during the census of all the HCWs. In a multivariate linear regression model, the WV experienced and poor work ability were highly significant predictors of work-related stress (p < 0.001). Nurses who had experienced WV in the previous year had an increased odds ratio (OR = 8.94; Confidence Interval 95% = 4.43; 18.01) of reporting a state of distress. Conclusions: Experience has shown that specific questioning about violence-the commonest method used-encourages respondents to report violent events and may induce overreporting. This method also tends to involve younger workers who are more exposed to WV. On the other hand, prospective studies based on official reports may be influenced by underreporting. Monitoring WV during health promotion interventions included in occupational health surveillance could minimize both phenomena. Systematic studies and meta-analyses which rely mainly on "ad hoc" studies may be biased.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。