Network analysis of dimensions of risk perception and mental health among nursing staff

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To understand the relationship between nursing staff's risk perception and psychological health dimensions，analyze the core dimensions that affect mental health，and provide potential intervention targets for maintaining nursing staff's mental health. Methods From April 1，2022 to October 31，2023，a total of 2 546 nursing staff from 20 hospitals from east，west，south，north，and central regions were conveniently selected for investigation. Using a self-compiled general data questionnaire，a revised risk perception questionnaire for nurses and the 21-item depression anxiety and stress scale（DASS-21） as tools. The R software was used for statistical analysis and visualization，the network model was used to analyze the relations between the five dimensions of risk perception and the three dimensions of DASS-21，and to analyze the intensity and bridge-intensity centrality of each dimension in the network. Results In the network analysis of risk perception and mental health network，the association between "time risk" and "stress" "social mental risk" and "stress" were strong，their non-regularized partial correlation coefficients were 0.07 and 0.04，respectively. Analysis of strength and bridge-strength centrality showed that "stress" had the strongest strength centrality，with an expected influence（EI） of 0.13，and the two dimensions with the highest bridge-strength centrality were "stress" [bridge expected influence（BEI）=0.13] and "time risk"（BEI=0.11）. Conclusion There are different correlation paths between various dimensions of risk perception and mental health. "Time risk" may be the core dimension affecting the mental health of nursing staff，and "stress" in mental health dimension may be the core symptom.

Key words: Nursing staff, Risk perception, Mental health, Network analysis

CLC Number:

R181.2

SHAO Xiaoqin, MA Xiaojing, SONG Xiangrui, YANG Qiong, SHI Xiaoying, DONG Wei. Network analysis of dimensions of risk perception and mental health among nursing staff. [J]OCCUPATION AND HEALTH, 2025, 41(24): 3383-3388.

Figures/Tables 6

References 24

[1]	储雪琴. 护士安全行为及相关因素作用机制研究[D]. 合肥: 安徽医科大学, 2018.
[2]	张欣唯. 护理人员风险感知问卷编制及影响因素的研究[D]. 西安: 第四军医大学, 2016.
[3]	王芳, 杭荣华, 黄龙. 医务人员风险感知对心理健康的影响:个体恐惧体验和自我效能感的中介作用[J]. 皖南医学院学报, 2022, 41(5):483-486.
[4]	OH S H, PAEKk H J, HOVE T. Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics,genre-specific media effects,and risk perceptions:The case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea[J]. Asian J Commun, 2015, 25:18.
[5]	MAGUIRE P A, REAY R E, LOOI J C L. A sense of dread:Affect and risk perception in people with schizophrenia during an influenza pandemic[J]. Australas Psychiatry, 2019, 27(5):450-455. DOI URL
[6]	HASLBEAK J M B, FRIED E I. How predictable are symptoms in psychopathological networks?A reanalysis of 18 published datasets[J]. Psychol Med, 2017, 47(16):2767-2776. DOI URL
[7]	CONTRERAS A, NIETO I, VALIENTE C, et al. The study of psychopa-thology from the network analysis perspective:A systematic review[J]. Psychother Psychosom, 2019, 88(2) :71-83. DOI URL
[8]	CHEN L, ZHANG J, FU W. Health-promoting lifestyles and their related influences among nursing assistants in nursing homes in China[J]. Appl Nurs Res, 2018, 39:97-102. DOI PMID
[9]	张欣唯. 护理人员风险感知问卷编制及影响因素的研究[D]. 西安: 第四军医大学, 2016.
[10]	龚栩, 谢熹瑶, 徐蕊, 等. 抑郁-焦虑-压力量表简体中文版(DASS-21)在中国大学生中的测试报告[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2010, 18(4):443-446.
[11]	EPSKAMP S, WALDOR L J, MÕTTUS R, et al. The gaussian graphical model in cross-sectional and time-series data[J]. Multivariate Behav Res, 2018, 53(4):453-480. DOI PMID
[12]	FRIEDMAN J, HASTIE T, TIBSHIRANI R. Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso[J]. Biostatistics, 2007, 9(3):432-441. DOI URL
[13]	EPSKAMP S, FRIED E I. A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks[J]. Psychol Methods, 2018, 23(4):617-634. DOI PMID
[14]	FOYGEL R, DRTON M. Extended Bayesian information criteria for Gaussian graphical models[J]. Adv Neural Inform Process Syst, 2021, 23:2020-2028.
[15]	FRUCHERMAN T M J, REINGOLD E M. Graph drawing by force-directed placement[J]. Software Pract Exper, 1991, 21(11):1129-1164. DOI URL
[16]	COSTANTINI G, EPSKAMP S, BORSBOOM D. State of the art personality research:A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R[J]. Res Personal, 2015, 54(1):13-29.
[17]	ROBINAUGH D J, MILLNER A J, MCNALLY R J. Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network[J]. J Abnorm Psychol, 2016, 125(6):747-757. DOI PMID
[18]	JONES P J, MA R, MCNALLY R J. Bridge centrality:A network approach to understanding comorbidity[J]. Multivariate Behav Res, 2019, 56(2):353-367. DOI URL
[19]	EPSKAMP S, BORSBOOM D, FRIED E I. Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy:A tutorial paper[J]. Behav Res Methods, 2017, 50(1):195-212. DOI URL
[20]	BORSBOOM D, ROBINAUGH D J, RHEMTULLA M, et al. Robustness and replicability of psychopathology networks[J]. World Psychiatry, 2018, 17(2):143-144. DOI URL
[21]	FIKSDAL A, HANLIN L, KURAS Y, et al. Associations between symptoms of depression and anxiety and cortisol responses to and recovery from acute stress[J]. Psychoneuroendocrinol, 2019, 102:44-52. DOI URL
[22]	CHAO L, LIU C, SUTTHAWONGWADEE S, et al. Effects of probiotics on depressive or anxiety variables in healthy participants under stress conditions or with a depressive or anxiety diagnosis:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Front Neurol, 2020, 11:00421. DOI URL
[23]	LOVIBOND P F, LOVIBOND S H. The structure of negative emotional states:Comparison of the epression anxiety stress scales(DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories[J]. Behav Res Ther, 1995, 33(3):335-343. DOI URL
[24]	徐奕旻, 吴瑛, 张艳, 等. 全国医院护士工作状态的调查分析[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2016, 51(8):947-950.

项目	人数	构成比（%）	项目	人数	构成比（%）
年龄（岁）			所在科室
18~<25	203	7.97	内科	856	33.62
25~<30	521	20.46	外科	665	26.12
30~<35	823	32.33	门急诊	256	10.05
35~<40	557	21.88	感染科	54	2.12
≥40	442	17.36	手术室	126	4.95
性别			ICU	95	3.73
男	62	2.44	妇科/儿科	141	5.54
女	2 484	97.56	其他	353	13.87
工作年限（年）			劳动关系
0~<4	331	13.00	正式编制	150	5.89
4~<10	707	27.77	合同制	2 313	90.85
10~<15	788	30.95	其他	83	3.26
≥15	720	28.28	平均月收入（元）
婚姻状况			1 000~<4 000	318	12.49
未婚	652	25.60	4 000~<7 000	1 335	52.44
已婚未育	242	9.51	7 000~<10 000	601	23.60
已婚已育	1 622	63.71	≥10 000	292	11.47
其他	30	1.18	医院级别
职称			总院	825	32.40
护士	372	14.61	中心医院	1 314	51.61
护师	1 122	44.07	队属医院	407	15.99
主管护师	1 015	39.87	所属区域
副主任护师及以上	37	1.45	东部	634	24.90
文化程度			西部	534	20.97
大专及以下	659	25.88	南部	482	18.93
本科	1 880	73.84	北部	571	22.43
研究生及以上	7	0.28	中部	325	12.77

项目	人数	构成比（%）	项目	人数	构成比（%）
年龄（岁）			所在科室
18~<25	203	7.97	内科	856	33.62
25~<30	521	20.46	外科	665	26.12
30~<35	823	32.33	门急诊	256	10.05
35~<40	557	21.88	感染科	54	2.12
≥40	442	17.36	手术室	126	4.95
性别			ICU	95	3.73
男	62	2.44	妇科/儿科	141	5.54
女	2 484	97.56	其他	353	13.87
工作年限（年）			劳动关系
0~<4	331	13.00	正式编制	150	5.89
4~<10	707	27.77	合同制	2 313	90.85
10~<15	788	30.95	其他	83	3.26
≥15	720	28.28	平均月收入（元）
婚姻状况			1 000~<4 000	318	12.49
未婚	652	25.60	4 000~<7 000	1 335	52.44
已婚未育	242	9.51	7 000~<10 000	601	23.60
已婚已育	1 622	63.71	≥10 000	292	11.47
其他	30	1.18	医院级别
职称			总院	825	32.40
护士	372	14.61	中心医院	1 314	51.61
护师	1 122	44.07	队属医院	407	15.99
主管护师	1 015	39.87	所属区域
副主任护师及以上	37	1.45	东部	634	24.90
文化程度			西部	534	20.97
大专及以下	659	25.88	南部	482	18.93
本科	1 880	73.84	北部	571	22.43
研究生及以上	7	0.28	中部	325	12.77

变量	得分（$\bar{x}\pm s$）	可预测性
风险感知
人身安全风险	12.27±4.30	0.59
身体功能风险	12.81±4.10	0.73
职业暴露风险	11.47±3.79	0.73
社会心理风险	20.63±6.31	0.71
时间风险	17.33±5.79	0.71
心理健康
焦虑	2.93±3.20	0.76
抑郁	2.45±3.12	0.77
压力	3.41±3.45	0.80

变量	得分（$\bar{x}\pm s$）	可预测性
风险感知
人身安全风险	12.27±4.30	0.59
身体功能风险	12.81±4.10	0.73
职业暴露风险	11.47±3.79	0.73
社会心理风险	20.63±6.31	0.71
时间风险	17.33±5.79	0.71
心理健康
焦虑	2.93±3.20	0.76
抑郁	2.45±3.12	0.77
压力	3.41±3.45	0.80