Donya Balideh, Jamileh Farokhzadian, Sakineh Miri, Sedigheh Khodabandeh Shahraki, Mohadeseh Motamed-Jahromi
Following the intervention, the mean total aesthetic nursing care score increased significantly in the intervention group compared with baseline and the control group (81.02 ± 6.26 vs. 43.26 ± 2.18, p < 0.001). In contrast, no significant change was observed in the control group (p = 0.11). Similarly, the mean total compassion competence score increased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention (60.73 ± 16.17) compared with baseline and the control group (p < 0.001), while no significant change was found in the control group (p = 0.12).
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an aesthetics-based educational intervention on compassion competence and aesthetic nursing care among psychiatric nurses.
DESIGN: A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study with a control group.
METHODS: The study was conducted at a psychiatric hospital in Kerman, Iran. A total of 90 eligible psychiatric nurses were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (n = 45) or a control group (n = 45). The intervention group participated in four weekly 90-min aesthetics-based nursing care educational sessions over four consecutive weeks, whereas the control group continued routine practice without receiving the educational intervention. Data were collected at baseline and 1 month after completion of the educational program using the Aesthetics of Nursing Care Scale (ENCS) and the Compassion Competence Scale (CCS). Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
RESULTS: Following the intervention, the mean total aesthetic nursing care score increased significantly in the intervention group compared with baseline and the control group (81.02 ± 6.26 vs. 43.26 ± 2.18, p < 0.001). In contrast, no significant change was observed in the control group (p = 0.11). Similarly, the mean total compassion competence score increased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention (60.73 ± 16.17) compared with baseline and the control group (p < 0.001), while no significant change was found in the control group (p = 0.12).
NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was involved in this study.