Conectar
To update the synthesis and evaluation of research that has investigated nurse resilience and examine contemporary understanding of the influences on nurse resilience, nurses' experiences, and how resilience can impact individual nurses, patients and employers.
An updated integrative review.
CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO, searched from August 2019 to June 2025.
Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the eight subthemes the original review had no new evidence in the update. Three new subthemes were generated. The three main themes from the original review, The Resilient Nurse, Nurses' Experiences of Resilience and Employment Conditions and Nurse Resilience were sustained, with the new subthemes providing additional understanding.
The majority of studies continued to focus on the individual, failing to consider the complexity of nurse resilience. Higher levels of resilience were associated with reduced psychological harm and increased well-being. Examination of personal characteristics of the resilient nurse resulted in mixed findings. Qualitative and mixed methods research advanced the investigation of external factors that influence resilience, emphasising the importance of workplace conditions. The adverse work conditions nurses experience and the difficulties providing optimal patient care as a result of these conditions were highlighted in qualitative findings.
This updated review describes and examines the evolution of nurse resilience research. Individual factors continued to receive the most attention. There was further investigation of external factors that influence resilience, including the impact of workplace conditions. This highlights modifiable factors in the workplace that can be included in future interventional research to promote and sustain nurse resilience.
This integrative review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
This literature review did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
To identify the barriers to timely access to palliative care from the perspective of Australian inpatients and their families.
A co-designed mixed methods study with an equal status explanatory design (QUAN ➔ QUAL).
Quantitative data were collected in Phase 1 via surveys to assess participants' knowledge and experience of palliative care. In the second phase, qualitative data were obtained via semi-structured interviews to explore participants' perceptions of palliative care and to identify barriers to palliative care.
A total of 194 complete patient survey responses and 52 family/visitor responses were received. Mean self-rated knowledge of palliative care was slightly higher than self-rated knowledge of end-of-life care in both groups. Patient respondents scored a mean of 9.3 out of 13 on the Palliative Care Knowledge Scale and family visitor respondents had a mean score of 9.7. Statistically significant differences in the mean Palliative Care Knowledge scores were found when patient and family respondents reported being familiar with palliative care. A total of 11 patients and nine family members participated in an interview in Phase 2. Three main themes and nine subthemes were identified. The three main barriers were Communication, Knowledge and Perceptions, and Accessibility.
Patients and family members perceived a range of barriers to palliative care at the individual, health professional, and system level. These findings highlight areas where targeted interventions should be developed to improve timely access to palliative care.
While the perspectives of health professionals are well known, the perceptions of patients and families on the barriers to palliative care are underreported. A wide variety of complex issues that could impede timely access to palliative care were identified at the individual, health professional and system level. Health consumer perspectives are essential to fully understanding the barriers to palliative care access. The findings of this research can be used to inform future interventions to improve access to palliative care.
Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) checklist (Data S2) (O’Cathain et al., 2008).
The study was guided by a steering group of health consumers and health professionals working in partnership with the research team through all stages of the research process.
FreshRSS 