
doi: 10.1111/jan.12157
pmid: 23614632
AbstractAimTo compare the self‐construal of nurses and doctors and establish whether their roles affect perceptions of independence and interdependence.BackgroundPrevious research has identified that errors in patient care occur when health professionals do not work cohesively as a team and have divergent beliefs about collaboration. Thus, it is important to understand factors shaping these beliefs. Although these are usually explained by aspects of group norms, the concept of self‐construal may serve as an underlying explanation.DesignA quasi‐experimental design was used.ParticipantsOne hundred and two nurses and doctors working in three nursing homes in Belgium took part in this study in 2009.MethodsNurses' and doctors' self‐construal was measured at their workplace, using Singelis' self‐construal scale. Statistical differences between nurses and doctors were investigated using analysis of covariance.ResultsResults showed statistically significant differences between doctors' and nurses' self‐construal. Doctors reported higher and dominant levels of ‘independent self‐construal’ compared with nurses. There were no differences between nurses and doctors for interdependence. However, gender differences emerged with male doctors reporting lower levels of interdependent self‐construal than male nurses. Conversely, female doctors reported higher levels of interdependent self‐construal than female nurses.ConclusionsDifferences in the roles and training of nurses and doctors and in knowledge of their interdependencies may explain differences in self‐construal. This might be useful for understanding why nurses and doctors develop divergent attitudes towards teamwork. Training that focuses on sharing knowledge on team interdependencies may positively influence teamwork attitudes and behaviour.
Male, Belgium, Health Services for the Aged, Physicians, Humans, Nurses, Female
Male, Belgium, Health Services for the Aged, Physicians, Humans, Nurses, Female
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 13 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
