Search

Abstract Background The ongoing global crisis of Higher Education (HE) institutions during the post-COVID-19 pandemic period has increased the likelihood of enduring psychological stressors for staff. This study aimed to identify factors associated with job insecurity, burnout, psychological distress and coping amongst staff working at HE institutions globally. Methods An anonymous cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 with staff at HE institutions across 16 countries. Job insecurity was measured using the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS), burnout using the Perceived Burnout measure question, psychological distress using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), and coping using the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Multivariable logistic regression with a stepwise variable selection method was used to identify associations. Results A total of 2,353 staff participated; the mean age (± SD) was 43(± 10) years and 61% were females. Most staff (85%) did not feel job insecurity, one-third (29%) perceived burnout in their jobs, more than two-thirds (73%) experienced moderate to very high levels of psychological distress, and more than half (58%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping. Perceived job insecurity was associated with staff working part-time [Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.53 (95% Confidence Intervals 1.15–2.02)], having an academic appointment [2.45 (1.78–3.27)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.86 (1.41–2.48)], perceived burnout [1.99 (1.54–2.56)] and moderate to very high level of psychological distress [1.68 (1.18–2.39)]. Perceived burnout was associated with being female [1.35 (1.12–1.63)], having multiple co-morbidities [1.53 (1.20–1.97)], perceived job insecurity [1.99 (1.55–2.57)], and moderate to very high levels of psychological distress [3.23 (2.42–4.30)]. Staff with multiple co-morbidities [1.46 (1.11–1.92)], mental health issues [2.73 (1.79–4.15)], perceived job insecurity [1.61 (1.13–2.30)], and perceived burnout [3.22 (2.41–4.31)] were associated with moderate to very high levels of psychological distress. Staff who perceived their mental health as good to excellent [3.36 (2.69–4.19)] were more likely to have medium to high resilient coping. Conclusions Factors identified in this study should be considered in reviewing and updating current support strategies for staff at HE institutions across all countries to reduce stress and burnout and improve wellbeing.

Abstract Background Case analysis is a dynamic and interactive teaching and learning strategy that improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills. However, there is limited evidence about its efficacy as an assessment strategy in nursing education. Objectives This study aimed to explore nursing students’ perceived efficacy of case analysis as an assessment method for clinical competencies in nursing education. Methods This study used a mixed methods design. Students filled out a 13-item study-advised questionnaire, and qualitative data from the four focus groups was collected. The setting of the study was the College of Nursing at Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. Descriptive and independent t-test analysis was used for the quantitative data, and the framework analysis method was used for the qualitative data. Results The descriptive analysis of 67 participants showed that the mean value of the perceived efficacy of case analysis as an assessment method was 3.20 (SD = 0.53), demonstrating an 80% agreement rate. Further analysis indicated that 78.5% of the students concurred with the acceptability of case analysis as an assessment method (mean = 3.14, SD = 0.58), and 80.3% assented its association with clinical competencies as reflected by knowledge and cognitive skills (m = 3.21, SD = 0.60). No significant difference in the perceived efficacy between students with lower and higher GPAs (t [61] = 0.05, p > 0.05) was identified Three qualitative findings were discerned: case analysis is a preferred assessment method for students when compared to MCQs, case analysis assesses students’ knowledge, and case analysis assesses students’ cognitive skills. Conclusions This study adds a potential for the case analysis to be acceptable and relevant to the clinical competencies when used as an assessment method. Future research is needed to validate the effectiveness of case analysis exams in other nursing clinical courses and examine their effects on academic and clinical performance.