Background and Aim: Mutuality is a process in which the patient participates and is involved in decision-making and care interventions. The aim of this study was to measure mutuality in the relationship between nurses and chronic illness patients. Methods: This study had a cross-sectional design; the sample included 249 patients and 249 nurses. Mutuality was measured with the Nurse–Patient Mutuality in Chronic Illness scale. Results: Patients had higher scores in almost all items (p < 0.001). Patients demonstrate high reciprocity towards nurses and the ability to express and share their emotions. Patients consider nurses their point of reference and share with them their health goals. Nurses show more difficulty in being mutual with the patient, especially in the aspects related to the sharing of emotions, objectives, and planning. The egalitarian relationship score was low in both patients and nurses. Conclusion: These findings are important to consider at clinical, educational, organisational, and policy levels. Nurse education and organisation must push towards respect for the wishes of patients, the possibility of expressing their choices, and their involvement in the care plan. Practice Implications: In clinical practice, it is necessary to put the patients more at the centre, involving them in the identification of objectives and in making decisions.

Mutuality between nurses and patients with chronic illnesses: A cross-sectional descriptive study / S. Cilluffo, B. Bassola, G. Pucciarelli, E. Vellone, M. Clari, V. Dimonte, M. Lusignani. - In: SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF CARING SCIENCES. - ISSN 0283-9318. - 38:2(2024 Jan), pp. 487-495. [10.1111/scs.13251]

Mutuality between nurses and patients with chronic illnesses: A cross-sectional descriptive study

S. Cilluffo
Primo
;
B. Bassola
Secondo
;
M. Lusignani
Ultimo
2024

Abstract

Background and Aim: Mutuality is a process in which the patient participates and is involved in decision-making and care interventions. The aim of this study was to measure mutuality in the relationship between nurses and chronic illness patients. Methods: This study had a cross-sectional design; the sample included 249 patients and 249 nurses. Mutuality was measured with the Nurse–Patient Mutuality in Chronic Illness scale. Results: Patients had higher scores in almost all items (p < 0.001). Patients demonstrate high reciprocity towards nurses and the ability to express and share their emotions. Patients consider nurses their point of reference and share with them their health goals. Nurses show more difficulty in being mutual with the patient, especially in the aspects related to the sharing of emotions, objectives, and planning. The egalitarian relationship score was low in both patients and nurses. Conclusion: These findings are important to consider at clinical, educational, organisational, and policy levels. Nurse education and organisation must push towards respect for the wishes of patients, the possibility of expressing their choices, and their involvement in the care plan. Practice Implications: In clinical practice, it is necessary to put the patients more at the centre, involving them in the identification of objectives and in making decisions.
cross-sectional study; decision-making; mutuality; nurse–patient relationship; patient engagement; patient outcomes
Settore MED/45 - Scienze Infermieristiche Generali, Cliniche e Pediatriche
Settore MEDS-24/C - Scienze infermieristiche generali, cliniche, pediatriche e ostetrico-ginecologiche e neonatali
gen-2024
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Scandinavian Caring Sciences - 2024 - Cilluffo - Mutuality between nurses and patients with chronic illnesses A.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 547.72 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
547.72 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1050590
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact