This paper describes the development of the Mental Health Professionals Stress Scale (MHPSS): a self-report method of identifying sources of stress for mental health professionals. The 42-item scale, which includes seven subscales, was administered to 154 clinical psychologists and 111 mental health nurses. The MHPSS was found to have good internal consistency (alpha = .87 for clinical psychologists; alpha = .94 for mental health nurses). The preliminary evidence suggests that the concurrent validity of the MHPSS is good. The expected relationships between the scale and between the criterion measures--General Health Questionnaire, a symptom check list, job satisfaction, self-reported stress level and quality of social support--were demonstrated. The results also provide evidence for the discriminant validity of the subscales to measure different aspects of the stress experience. The MHPSS was shown to discriminate between two groups of health professionals who might be expected to differ in their sources of stress. For clinical psychologists the most important source of stress was 'professional self-doubt' whereas the major source of stress for mental health nurses was found to be the difficulty of handling potentially violent or difficult patients in the context of scarce staff resources. For both groups, however, 'home-work conflict' was the subscale most strongly and consistently associated with mental health outcome. It is concluded that the preliminary evidence regarding the utility of the MHPSS is encouraging, although further data are clearly needed.

Sources of stress, job satisfaction and coping were investigated in 245 general hospital nurses using standardized questionnaires. It was hypothesized that coping strategies, social support and job satisfaction would moderate or buffer the effects of the stressor on psychological distress, such that those who were lower in coping skills, social support and job satisfaction would be more reactive to stress effects. Negative main effects on mental well‐being, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire, were found for workload, lack of social support, inadequate preparation, conflict with other nurses, conflict with doctors and use of avoidance coping strategies. Proposed buffering effects were investigated using multiple regression analysis to control for the main effects. Although consistently in the predicted direction, the buffering effects were found to be very small and non‐significant. It was concluded that for stress in nurses the results supported a transactional model rather than an interactive model for social support and coping.

No abstract

The present study examined occupational stress in four areas of high-dependency nursing: theatres, liver/renal, haematology/oncology and elective surgery. A total of 60 nurses from one large NHS hospital completed questionnaires on sources and levels of stress, psychological well-being and ways of coping; interviews with a small sub-sample were carried out. The results indicated that the amount of stress experienced was similar across all four departments, but its sources varied. Theatre nurses experienced less stress through patients' death and dying. Other factors which influenced both the level and sources of stress included post-qualification training, number of children and partnership-status. Nurses with post-qualification training perceived higher levels of stress. Social support was found to influence psychological well-being. Nurses who were living with a partner or were married experienced fewer stress symptoms than those with no partner, and nurses with two children experienced significantly less stress through dealing with patients and relatives. Reactions to stress elicited a range of adaptive and maladaptive coping styles. Nurses sampled indicated universal support for the introduction of 'nurse-for-a-day' and management 'swap-overs' as practised in Boston, USA. This study recommends sending nurses on management and administration courses and stress-management programmes.