A Study of the Relationship between Compassion Fatigue, Somatization and Silencing Response among Hospital Nurses: Focusing on the Mediating Effects of Silencing Response

Sun Hwa Kim; Tae Wha Lee

doi:10.7469/kjan.2014.26.3.362

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.26(3) > 1094557

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Lee: A Study of the Relationship between Compassion Fatigue, Somatization and Silencing Response among Hospital Nurses: Focusing on the Mediating Effects of Silencing Response

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2014;26(3):362-371.

Published online: NaN June 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2014.26.3.362

A Study of the Relationship between Compassion Fatigue, Somatization and Silencing Response among Hospital Nurses: Focusing on the Mediating Effects of Silencing Response

Sun Hwa Kim¹, Tae Wha Lee^2,

^¹Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul

^²College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Lee, Tae Wha College of Nursing, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2228-3305, Fax: +82-2-392-5440, E-mail: 79ssunhwa@hanmail.net

Received 26 November 20132 May 2014 Accepted 3 June 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify Compassion Fatigue (CF), Somatization, and Silencing Response (SR) among nurses and understand intermediate effects between the variables.

Methods

The sample of 240 nurses who were working three shifts in medical and surgical wards, and emergency room were recruited in three hospitals with over 700 beds. A structured questionnaire was used which included CF, Somatization and SR scales. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Pearson's correlation coefficients and stepwise multiple regression.

Results

There were statistically significant differences in CF, Somatization and SR depending on perceived personal health condition, experience of turnover, co-worker support. There were significant correlations between those study variables. The result also indicated that burnout (ß=.81, p<.001) which is a part of Secondary Traumatic Stress and Somatization (ß=.79, p<.001) have the role of partial mediator in the relationship between Secondary Traumatic Stress and Silencing response.

Conclusion

The results of study show that an intermediary role by Burnout and Somatization in Silencing response of nurses is important for effective human resource management in hospital nursing staffs. Effective human resource management which includes mentoring and social support system can enhance the professional quality of life of nurses, which will eventually contribute to the quality of care by those care providers and counselors.

Keywords: Compassion fatigue, Somatization, Silencing response, Hospital nurse

REFERENCES

Aycock N.., Boyle D.2009. Interventions to manage compassion fatigue in oncology nursing. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing. 13(2):183––191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1188/09.CJON.

Baranowsky A. B.2002. Treating compassion fatigue. Figley C. R., editorThe silencing response in clinical practice: On the road to dialogue. p. 155––170. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Bennett J. A.2000. Mediator and moderator variables in nursing research: Conceptual and statistical difference. Research in Nursing & Health. 23:415––420.

Byun D. S.., Yom Y. H.2009. Factors effecting the burnout of clinical nurses -focused on emotional labor-. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 15(3):444––454.

Cho C. H.., Kim M. S.2010, March. An effect of nurses' job stress and job burnout, job satisfaction and turnover intention: Focusing on large-sized hospital in Daegu·Gyeong-buk area. Oral session presented at the annual meeting of The Korean Academic Association of Business Administration, Dong-guk University, Seoul.

Derogatis L. R.., Cleary P. A.1977. Factorial invariance across gender for the primary symptom dimensions of the SCL-90. The British Journal of social and Clinical Psychology. 16(4):347––356.

Elkonin D.., Van der Vyver L.2011. Positive and negative emotional responses to work-related trauma of intensive care nurses in private health care facilities. Health SA Ge-sondheid. 16(1):436––443. http://www.hsag.co.za. DOI: doi:10.4102/hsag.v16i1.436.

Figley C. R.1995. Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Jeon S. Y.., Ha J. Y.2012. Traumatic events, professional quality of life and physical symptoms among emergency nurses. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Adult Nursing. 23(1):64––73.

Jo S. G.., Park M. S.2013. The influence of emotional labor and job stress on somatization symptoms among nurse officers. Journal of Military Nursing Research. 31(2):77––90.

Kim I. S.2009. The role of self-efficacy and social support in the relationship between emotional labor and burn out, turn over intention among hospital nurses. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 15(4):515––526.

Kim S.., Kim J. H.., Park J. Y.., Suh E. E.., Yang H. J.., Lee S. Y., et al. 2010. Oncology nurses professional quality of life in a tertiary hospital. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 16(3):145––155.

Kim Y. G.., Yoon D. Y.., Kim J. I.., Chae C. H.., Hong Y. S.., Yang C. G., et al. 2002. Effects of health on shift-work: General and psychological health, sleep, stress, quality of life. The Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 15(3):247––256.

Kwon S. M.2003. Contemporary abnormal psychology. Seoul: Hakjisa.

Lee J. M.., Yom Y. H.2013. Effects of work stress, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction on burnout in clinical nurses. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 19(5):689––697. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2013.19.5.689.

Lee J. Y.., Yu K. L.2010. Compassion fatigue: Implications for counselors. The Korean Journal of Counseling. 11(1):19––36.

Neville K.., Cole D. A.2013. The relationships among health promotion behaviors, compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction in nurses practicing in a community medical center. Journal of Nursing Administration. 43(6):348––354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182942c23.

Novy D.., Berry M. P.., Parmer J. L.., Mensing C.., Willey J.., Bruera E.2005. Somatic symptoms in patients with chronic non-cancer-related and cancer-related pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 29(6):603––612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.09.005.

O'connor M. F.2001. On the etiology and effective management of professional distress and impairment among psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 32(4):345––350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.4.345.

Oh H. J.2008. The impact of job stress and alexithymia on somatization. Unpublished master's thesis, Daegu University, Daegu.

Oh J. H.., Lim N. Y.2006. Analysis of factors influencing secondary traumatic stress, burnout, and physical symptoms in fire fighters. The Korean Journal of Fundamentals of Nursing. 13(1):96––106.

Park H. J.2009. Emotional labor, emotional expression and burnout of clinical nurses. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 15(2):225––232.

Pfifferling J. H.., Gilley K.2000. Overcoming compassion fatigue. Family Practice Management. 7(4):39––46.

Shin M. K.., Kang H. L.2011. Effects of emotional labor and occupational stress on somatization in nurses. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 17(2):158––167.

Showalter S. E.2010. Compassion fatigue: What is it? why does it matter? recognizing the symptoms, acknowledging the impact, developing the tools to prevent compassion fatigue and strengthen the professional already suffering from the effects. American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine. 27(4):239––242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049909109354096.

Stamm B. H.2010. The concise ProQOL manual. 2nd ed.Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org.

Vitello-Cicciu J. M.2003. Innovative leadership through emotional intelligence. Nursing Management. 34(10):28––33.

Yom Y. H.., Kim H. J.2012. Effects of compassion satisfaction and social support in the relationship between compassion fatigue and burnout in hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 42(6):870––878. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.6.870.

Yoon K. S.., Kim S. Y.2010. Influences of job stress and burnout on turnover intention of nurses. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 16(4):507––516.

Table 1.

Differences of Compassion Fatigue, Somatization, Silencing Response according to General Characteristics (N=240)

Variables	Categories	n(%)	Compassion fatigue				Somatization		Silencing response
			STS		Burnout		Somatization		Silencing response
			M±SD	t or F(p) Scheffé	M±SD	t or F (p) Scheffé	M±SD	t or F(p) Scheffé	M±SD	t or F(p) Scheffé
Gender	Male	4(1.7)	2.00±0.82	8.62	2.65±0.60	2.14	2.13±0.92	0.00	4.70±1.22	0.42
Gender	Female	236(98.3)	2.81±0.55	(.004)	3.01±0.48	(.145)	2.11±0.71	(.961)	5.12±1.29	(.517)
Age(year)	20~29^a	125(52.1)	2.85±0.59	2.05	3.11±0.51	8.26	2.18±0.72	2.26	5.31±1.15	8.56
	30~39^b	85(35.4)	2.80±0.49	(.131)	2.92±0.39	(＜.001)	2.08±0.67	(.072)	5.07±1.36	(＜.001)
	≥40^c	30(12.5)	2.62±0.58		2.77±0.52	a＞c	1.86±0.71	a＞c	4.30±1.29	a, b＞c
Marital status	Unmarried	160(66.7)	2.79±0.60	0.09	2.92±0.40	3.52	2.09±0.70	.23	5.10±1.22	0.06
Marital status	Married	80(33.3)	2.82±0.46	(.768)	3.04±0.52	(.062)	2.14±0.72	(.636)	5.14±1.41	(.801)
Religion	Yes	135(56.2)	2.80±0.54	0.00	2.95±0.46	4.33	2.13±0.77	.19	5.01±1.25	2.10
Religion	No	105(43.8)	2.80±0.58	(.976)	3.08±0.51	(.038)	2.09±0.66	(.664)	5.25±1.32	(.148)
Education	College^a Universitiy^b ≥Master^c	111(46.3) 105(43.7) 24(10.0)	2.87±0.55 2.76±0.58 2.68±0.50	1.63 (.199)	3.10±0.50 2.97±0.46 2.70±0.39	7.81 (＜.001) a, b＞c	2.21±0.78 2.03±0.60 2.00±0.78	2.06 (.130)	5.29±1.26 5.03±1.26 4.69±1.40	2.68 (.071)
On duty average sleeping tim	＜5hrs	53(22.1)	2.69±0.58	2.90	2.94±0.53	2.12	2.22±0.62	3.48	5.10±1.25	0.12
	≥5hrs	87(36.3)	2.91±0.49	(.057)	3.09±0.45	(.123)	2.21±0.73	(＜.032)	5.17±1.37	(.885)
	≥6hrs	100(41.6)	2.77±0.59		2.96±0.49		1.97±0.71	a＞b, c	5.07±1.24
Off duty average sleeping time	＜7hrs	85(35.4)	2.75±0.47	1.13	2.97±0.44	0.45	2.16±0.70	0.77	5.03±1.23	0.63
Off duty average sleeping time	≥7hrs	155(64.6)	2.83±0.60	(.288)	3.02±0.51	(.505)	2.08±0.71	(.381)	5.16±1.32	(.427)
Subjective health status	UnHealthy^a Usually^b Healthy^c	78(32.5) 121(50.4) 41(17.1)	2.91±0.57 2.85±0.50 2.45±0.58	10.74 (＜.001) a, b＞c	3.26±0.46 2.94±0.41 2.69±0.50	24.36 (＜.001) a＞b＞c	2.46±0.79 2.02±0.60 1.69±0.50	20.34 (＜.001)	5.48±1.17 5.08±1.31 4.51±1.21	8.28 (＜.001) a, b＞c
Work unit	Medical	103(42.9)	2.82±0.57	1.48	2.99±0.49	1.41	2.11±0.74	1.27	4.91±1.28	2.28
	Surgical	108(45.0)	2.83±0.53	(.230)	3.05±0.49	(.247)	2.16±0.72	(.282)	5.25±1.29	(.105)
	ER	29(12.1)	2.63±0.59		2.89±0.47		1.92±0.48		5.32±1.23
Clinical experience (year)	＞5^a	113(47.1)	2.82±0.61	0.15	3.05±0.49	2.62	2.17±0.69	0.77	5.34±1.18	6.47
	≥5^b	54(22.5)	2.78±0.50	(.862)	3.05±0.51	(.075)	2.07±0.73	(.466)	5.25±1.24	(＜.001)
	≥10^c	73(30.4)	2.78±0.53		2.89±0.46		2.04±0.71		4.67±1.38	a, b＞c
Experience in current unit (year)	＞3	97(40.4)	2.81±0.57	1.52	3.04±0.51	1.03	2.09±0.70	0.40	5.18±1.23	0.69
	≥3	42(17.5)	2.92±0.61	(.221)	3.04±0.56	(.357)	2.20±0.66	(.688)	5.24±1.35	(.504)
	≥5	101(42.1)	2.75±0.52		2.95±0.43		2.08±0.73		5.00±1.32
Position	Staff	209(87.1)	2.80±0.57	0.00	3.02±0.49	2.24	2.12±0.69	0.60	5.18±1.27	4.60
Position	Charge	31(12.9)	2.80±0.48	(.989)	2.88±0.42	(.136)	2.02±0.80	(.441)	4.66±1.33	(.033)
Turn over experience	Yes	46(4.2)	2.58±0.55	9.37	2.86±0.51	5.04	1.85±0.54	7.80	4.62±1.18	8.85
Turn over experience	No	194(80.8)	2.85±0.55	(.002)	3.04±0.48	(.026)	2.17±0.73	(.006)	5.23±1.28	(.003)
Co-work support	Yes	125(52.1)	2.71±0.56	7.32	2.91±0.48	10.74	1.94±0.58	15.31	4.93±1.14	5.20
Co-work support	No	115(47.9)	2.90±0.54	(.007)	3.11±0.47	(＜.001)	2.29±0.78	(＜.001)	5.31±1.40	(＜.023)

STS=secondary traumatic stress.

Table 2.

The Descriptive Statistics of Compassion Fatigue, Somatization, Silencing Response of Participants. (N=240)

Variables		Categories	n (%)	M±SD	Range
Compassion fatigue	Secondary traumatic stress	≤22 (low)	37 (15.4)	28.01±5.59	10~50
		23~41 (moderate)	201 (83.8)
		≥42 (high)	2 (0.8)
	Burnout	≤22 (low)	7 (2.9)	27.49±4.67	10~50
		23~41 (moderate)	232 (96.7)
		≥42 (high)	1 (0.4)
Somatization				23.58±7.85	12~60
Silencing response		0~20 (minimal risk)	0 (0.0)	76.71±19.26	0~150
		21~40 (some risk)	6 (2.5)
		41~94 (moderate risk)	193 (80.4)
		95~150 (high risk)	41 (17.1)

Table 3.

Correlations among Variables (N=240)

Variables	Compassion fatigue		Somatization
	Secondary traumatic stress	Burnout	Somatization
	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)
Burnout	.60 (＜.001)
Somatization	.48 (＜.001)	.49 (＜.001)
Silencing response	.46 (＜.001)	.48 (＜.001)	.42 (＜.001)

Table 4.

Burnout in Mediating Effects of the Relationship between STS and SR (N=240)

IV=independent variable; DV=dependent variable; PV=parameter variable; STS=secondary traumatic stress; BO=burnout; SR=silencing response;

p＜.001.

Table 5.

Somatization in Mediating Effects of the Relationship between STS and SR (N=240)

IV=independent variable; DV=dependent variable; PV=parameter variable; STS=secondary traumatic stress; SR=silencing response;

p＜.001.

TOOLS

Similar articles