The term false memory describes outcomes to various procedures and techniques, such as coming to believe that suggested false events occurred, acceptance of postevent misinformation, and recognition of critical lures in the Deese−Roediger−McDermott (DRM) procedure. The literature to date has indicated that these memory errors intercorrelate poorly, if at all. However, issues with sample size and measurement reliability may have affected prior estimates. This study examined links among these 3 techniques in a sizable sample (N = 360), with attention to the reliability of procedures and measures. Weak but statistically reliable correlations emerged between false-event suggestion and postevent misinformation, and between postevent misinformation and DRM intrusions; correlations between false-event suggestion and DRM were weak and inconsistent. These effects were influenced by largely independent underlying mechanisms. The term false memory lacks precision and requires qualification.
Due to the unique set of stressors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers in acute care settings may be facing elevated rates of mental health symptomatology. The purpose of this study was to assess levels of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of healthcare employees working in hospitals and their use of formal and informal mental health supports. Data was gathered over a three-week period in December 2020 as COVID cases began to rise sharply in Ontario, Canada. Results from an online survey of 650 healthcare employees suggested that overall levels of depression, anxiety, and stress were mild. However, a significant minority of participants reported severe or extremely severe levels of depression (14.4%), anxiety (21.8%), and stress (13.5%). Levels of distress were higher among women, younger participants, those who did not work directly with COVID+ patients, and those who were redeployed. Use of formal mental health supports (e.g., Employee Assistance Plans, teletherapy) was very low (<10%), with the most frequently-reported reason for not using supports being “problems not severe enough to require this service”. Implications are considered for healthcare policy decisions as hospital systems attempt to address the mental health needs of their employees.
PurposeNurses working during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have reported elevated levels of anxiety, burnout and sleep disruption. Hospital administrators are in a unique position to mitigate or exacerbate stressful working conditions. The goal of this study was to capture the recommendations of nurses providing frontline care during the pandemic.Design/methodology/approachSemi-structured interviews were conducted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with 36 nurses living in Canada and working in Canada or the United States.FindingsThe following recommendations were identified from reflexive thematic analysis of interview transcripts: (1) The nurses emphasized the need for a leadership style that embodied visibility, availability and careful planning. (2) Information overload contributed to stress, and participants appealed for clear, consistent and transparent communication. (3) A more resilient healthcare supply chain was required to safeguard the distribution of equipment, supplies and medications. (4) Clear communication of policies related to sick leave, pay equity and workload was necessary. (5) Equity should be considered, particularly with regard to redeployment. (6) Nurses wanted psychological support offered by trusted providers, managers and peers.Practical implicationsOver-reliance on employee assistance programmes and other individualized approaches to virtual care were not well-received. An integrative systems-based approach is needed to address the multifaceted mental health outcomes and reduce the deleterious impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nursing workforce.Originality/valueResults of this study capture the recommendations made by nurses during in-depth interviews conducted early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a mixed-methods longitudinal study, we examined the relationship between Erikson’s construct of generativity, measured at ages 23 and 26, and environmentalism at age 32. Over a hundred Canadian youth completed a questionnaire that measured generative concerns. Environmentalism was assessed by questionnaires on involvement, identity, and attitudes, as well as through narratives about personal experiences with the environment. Narratives were coded for meaning, vividness, and impact of environmentalism. Stronger generative concern in emerging adulthood positively predicted environmentalism after controlling for liberal political orientation and benevolence values. Qualitative analyses of the environmental narrative of participants high in generative concerns revealed three themes that highlight the developmental process that ties generative concerns to environmentalism: (1) wanting to feel more empowered to help the environment, (2) the role of having children as a focus for crystallizing environmentalism, and (3) the passing on of specific family traditions from earlier generations. Environmentalism thus may be one important domain of expression for generative care in youth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.