Stress, self-esteem and well-being among female health professionals: A randomized clinical trial on the impact of a self-care intervention mediated by the senses

Eliseth Ribeiro Leão, Daniela Reis Dal Fabbro, Rebeca Barqueiro de Oliveira, Ingrid Ribeiro dos Santos, Elivane da Silva Victor, Rita Lacerda Aquarone, Cristiane Benvenuto Andrade, Vivian Finotti Ribeiro, Roselaine Coelho de Oliveira, Rosa Friedlander and Daniela Santos Ferreira

PLOS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, issue 2, 1-19

Abstract: Background: Stress levels are evident among health professionals. However, there are few studies on sensory-based self-care aimed at stress management, self-esteem and subjective well-being in this group of professionals. Objective: To assess the impact of a self-care intervention mediated by the senses on the stress levels, self-esteem and well-being of health professionals in a hospital environment. Methods: A total of 93 health professionals participated in an unblinded clinical trial, randomized into four groups: 1) control (no intervention); 2) Monosensory—daily body moisturizing (DBM) with odorless cream; 3) Bisensory—DBM with scented cream; 4) Multisensory—DBM with scented cream associated with audiovisual material. Participants answered specific questionnaires to assess stress, self-esteem and well-being and cortisol samples were collected at baseline, 15 and 30 days following intervention, and at the 30-day follow-up. Results: Self-care was characterized as neglected, with most participants reporting inadequate hours of sleep (74%), irregular physical activity (68%), and inadequate nutrition (45%). Compared to the other groups, the Bisensory group had lower stress on all three assessments (p = 0.017; 0.012; 0.036), a life satisfaction 8% higher at follow-up than at baseline (95% CI: 2% to 15%, p = 0.016), a 10% increase in positive affect (95% CI: 2% to 19%, p = 0.011) and a 12% reduction in negative affect (95% CI: 3% to 21% less, p = 0.014) after 30 days. The Multisensory group showed improvement in self-esteem (p = 0.012) and reduced cortisol (p = 0.036) after 30 days of intervention. The control group showed no changes in the variables studied, except for cortisol: an increase at the 15-day evaluation (denoting higher risk for stress, p = 0.009) and a reduction at follow-up (p = 0.028), which was nevertheless within normal levels. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02406755

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172455 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 72455&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0172455

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172455

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().