看護とケアのジャーナル

Purpose: During puberty growth is rapid and confusing, especially compared to the relatively earlier period of childhood. The purpose of this study was to compare the knowledge and attitude regarding pubertal changes among pre–adolescent boys before and after the pubertal preparedness programme (PPP) in experimental and comparison/control group or control group. Methods: A Quasi experimental (non-equivalent comparison/control group pre-test post-test) design was adopted with 100 pre-adolescent boys (50 in each experimental and comparison/control/control group) of age 12-14 years, selected by purposive sampling from two different rural government schools of Ambala District. The Knowledge and attitude of both groups were assessed using structured knowledge questionnaire (KR-20=0.77) and 5 point likert scale (Cronbach’s alpha=0.76), respectively. On the same day of pre-test, pubertal Preparedness Programme (PPP) was administered only to the experimental group and on 12th day Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) reinforcement session was held only for experimental group. After 28 days, post-test was taken to both groups. Results: The computed t value of pre-test scores of knowledge and attitude of pre-adolescent boys were 1.96 vs. 1.75 respectively in experimental and comparison/control/control group which was found to be non-significant at 0.05 level of significance which shows that both group didn’t differ significantly in their knowledge and attitude before the administration of PPP intervention. Findings of unpaired ‘t’ value of post-test knowledge and attitude scores of pre-adolescent boys were 14.25 vs. 10.98 respectively in experimental and comparison/control/control group were found significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus, knowledge and attitude of pre-adolescent boys were improved with PPP and FAQs session. Conclusion: PPP and FAQs (frequently asked questions) reinforcement session are effective in enhancing knowledge and developing favorable attitude among pre-adolescent boys.

Background: Complex practices used for care management are developed to include the perspectives of professionals, healthcare organizations and patients. Therefore, to implement strategies to provide quality care, identifying gaps in these practices is crucial. This study seeks to gain a better understanding of the management of health care for people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome by considering the perspective of health professionals, managers and patients of a specialized service facility in South Brazil that focuses on contagious diseases. Methods: This qualitative, dialogic, reflexive and interpretative study involved 16 participants. The data were derived from semi-structured interviews conducted during 2013 and 2014. Ethnograph® software was used to provide a descriptive and interpretative data analysis. Results: The results show that care management multidimensionality requires continuous attention to the way professionals think as well as reorganization of labor processes and the network of services provided. Thus emerged three categories: interdisciplinarity in care management; continuous training in care management; and strengthening of health care networks. Conclusion: From the perspective of individuals involved in managing and promoting the care and health of people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, changes are needed to improve the care of people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in terms of the three dimensions of care management.

Background: Competency affects several aspects of the quality of nursing care and has a significant contribution to the patient outcomes. There exists little up to date information concerning nursing profession as well as how nurses employing in clinical settings in Vietnam learn to improve their own competencies. Objectives: To investigate the ways Vietnamese nurses practicing in clinical settings have learned to improve their own competencies. Methods: A qualitative study, ethnographic method, comprised of the participant-observation, in-depth interview, and focus group discussion with multidisciplinary groups of nurses employing in Cho Ray Hospital, Vietnam, managers/administrators, nurse teachers, other health care personnel which derived from purposeful sampling technique. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Findings: The two ways of learning in order to develop competencies among nurses were identified by the participants through the data collection in this study, including formal and informal learning. Nurses have received their formal training in nursing education programs in nursing schools after graduation to upgrade their nursing professional level was identified as formal learning. However, in the situation of nursing education in Vietnam, there has been rare of formal nursing education programs in bachelor level and higher, informal learning included continuing nursing education, learning from working experience, learning from daily reflective process, and coaching and mentoring was a vital learning strategy for nurses to apply in order to enhance their competencies. Conclusion: The findings from this study provide valuable information and understanding of the ways Vietnamese nurses working in hospital context have learned to improve individual competencies. It would assist to establish an effectively and appropriately strategy in an effort of enhancing nursing competency among nurses in Vietnam.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????I???????????II????????2????????????????????????????????????????????????3????????????37????????????????????1????????????????????????I????II?????????????????????????????????????????4?????????????????????????115.54??SD=131.55???????????????????????????331.1??SD=234.97??????????????p<0.05?????II??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??: ???/????????????????????????????????????????????????/??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????: ????????????????: ???????????????????????? McCloskey Mueller ??????????????????????????Statistical Package for Social Scientists (20.V) ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????t???ANOVA f???????????????????/?????????????????223?????68.6??????????????????????104??46.6??????1?3???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????P?=0.027?0.014????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/??????????????????????????????????????