Attitude of Student Nurses' Toward People With Disabilities
Attitude of Student Nurses' Toward People With Disabilities
Attitude of Student Nurses' Toward People With Disabilities
Bachelor's Thesis
General Nursing
2011
Olasoji Awoyera
ATTITUDE OF STUDENT
NURSES’ TOWARD PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES
2
Olasoji Awoyera
The purpose of this study was to review the attitude of nursing students towards people with
disabilities in the western world and compare this with the pilot study from Africa for possibility of
cultural differences and demographical variables.
A systematic review of the previous studies were observed (n=6).The pilot study was conducted
with 60 students in Ghana. A questionnaire (Interaction with Disabled Person Scale) was filled
out by the students and statistical analysis; frequency, percentage, means and standard
deviation were measured.
The findings revealed that the students still had negative attitude towards people with
disabilities even in a different cultural background (74.76 ± 11.22). In the pilot study, no
significant difference was found in age, gender. Slight different in educational level but
significant differences in contact with people with disabilities, how often are they in contact and
to whom do they have contact.
The study showed that there is existence of negative attitude among the nursing students
regardless of cultural background. Further studies should be carried out on this and quick
intervention should be put in place to improve the students’ attitude to meet up with the
continuous growing in the number disabled people.
KEYWORDS:
Disabilities,nursingstudents,attitudes
CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6
1 INTRODUCTION 7
2 BACKGROUND 9
2.1 Disability overview 9
2.2 Attitude overview 10
2.3 Attitude towards people with disabilities 10
2.3.1 Societal Attitude 11
2.3.2 Attitude of Health care professionals 11
2.3.3 Attitude of health care students 12
3 PURPOSE AND AIM 14
4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 14
5 SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW 15
5.1 The method of review 15
5.2 The process of review 15
6 MATERIAL AND METHODS 19
6.1 Pilot Study 19
6.2 Data collection instrument 20
6.3 Data collection 20
6.4 Data analysis 21
7 RESULT OF PILOT STUDY 21
7.1 Demographic description 21
7.2 Interaction with disabled persons scale scores and the variables 25
7.3 Comparison of the means score ,standard deviation and variables 28
8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 32
9 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 32
10 DISCUSSION 33
10.1 Discussion of methodolgy 33
10.2 Discussion of result 33
11 CONCLUSION 36
APPENDICES
FIGURES
Figure 5. Percentage of how often the subjects had contact with the disabled
people. 24
Figure 10. Have you had experiences or contact and the scores 27
Figure 11. How often do you have contact and the scores 27
Figure 12. With whom do they have contact and the scores 28
TABLES
Table 5. Mean and standard deviation of the Contact with disabled people 30
Table 7. Mean and standard deviation of whom do you have most frequent
contact 31
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
The average global prevalence of moderate and severe disability ranges from
5% in children aged 0–14 years, to 15% in adults aged 15–59 years, and 46%
in adults aged 60 years and older. At all ages, both moderate and severe levels
of disability are higher in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income
countries; they are also higher in Africa than in other low- and middle-income
countries .Older people make up a greater proportion of the population in high-
income countries, but have lower levels of disability than their counterparts in
low- and middle-income countries. Disability is also more common among
children in the low- and middle-income countries. Moderate disability rates are
similar for males and females in high-income countries, but females have
somewhat higher rates of severe disability. In low- and middle income countries,
male and female disability rates are similar, although females aged 15–59 years
tend to have higher levels of moderate disability in Africa, the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Western Pacific. (WHO 2004, 34-35.)
Surveys conducted in all EU member states have shown that about 16% of the
population aged 16-64 has a long standing health problem or disability and that
3.4% has severe health problem. (United States Agency for International
Development 2009.) Biritwum et al., (2001) also reported that prevalence of
disabilities is increasing with age in Ghana.
Many have reported negative experiences in their interactions with health care
providers from all health professions. Collectively, the nursing profession has
been silent in its response to this call. (Smeltzer 2007,189.)
To save the situation, more knowledge is needed about the current status of
attitude of future nurses and factors influencing these attitudes. It has been
observed that this area is avoided by nursing professionals because of their
negative attitude toward people with disabilities (Johnston & Dixon 2006, 1).
This bachelor thesis review the current behavior of the nursing students and
what factors mostly influence their attitude towards disabled people. The review
also involve societal attitudes’ towards individuals with disabilities, attitudes of
other health professional students and health care professionals towards
individuals with disabilities. However, a pilot study was conducted to test for
cultural influence on the attitude with the nursing students (N=60) in Ghana.
This study is very important in the sense that, the results will give information on
the status of students’ attitude towards people with disabilities. Result’s will also
enlighten the educators, health professionals, counselors and work practice
employers to design programs that will improve the attitude of students toward
people with disabilities.
2 BACKGROUND
The common view of disability is as tragedy, disgrace, the result of sin, and
God’s punishment. People with disabilities are seen as a burden to others, to
their family, to themselves,and to society. In English they are described as
being an invalid (not a valid person), as being handicapped (implying a beggar
with a cap), or as being disabled (not able). Do these views carry over to the
way people in the helping professions relate to people with disabilities? That is
the interesting question. (Pfeiffer et al. 2004).
Health was defined in the WHO Constitution as ‘‘a state of complete physical,
mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’’.
More recently, the concept has been extended to include health-related quality
of life. Today, the International classification of impairments, disabilities and
handicaps (ICIDH) provides indicators that allow a more structured approach to
health disorders. (Barbotte et al., 2001,1047.)
There are many definitions of disability and many types of disabling conditions.
In 1980, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined disability as a limitation
in a person’s abilities (eg, mobility, personal care, communication, behavior);
impairment as an alteration in body systems (e.g, neurological, respiratory,
urologic); and handicap as the disadvantages experienced by people in their
environment (e.g, in the workplace, economic sufficiency, and independence).
(Lollar & Crews 2003, 201). In 2001, WHO revised its definitions to change the
focus from a classification system based on consequences of disease to one
that is focused on components of health.
Disability can be classified according to Americans with disabilities Act of 1990 :
“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference”- Winston Churchill ( Died 1965).
Attitudes are likes and dislikes- affinities for or aversions to objects, persons,
groups, situations, or any other identifiable aspects of the environment,including
abstract ideas and social policies (Atkinson et al., 1990, 702.)
Historically, people with disabilities have not been treated well by society. Over
centuries they have been the subject of varying degrees of pity, ridicule,
rejection and seclusion as the result of being 'different'. (Linton 1998,34).
“Attitudes are more important than facts”- Karl a. Menninger( DIED 1990)
A study completed by Kim et al., (2010) comparing the attitudes toward and
contact with people with disabilities among health care professional, lay
persons, and disabled persons (N=270,141 health care professionals) revealed
that health care professionals as well as lay persons and disabled persons have
negative attitudes toward people with disabilities.
Rao et al., (2009) also studied 108 health professionals’ attitude toward people
with mental disabilities. Participants had highly stigmatized attitudes towards
patients from a forensic hospital and those with active substance use disorders.
This suggested that health professionals have stigmatized attitudes towards an
illness such as schizophrenia and this is worse towards patients from a secure
hospital (Rao et al., 2009).
Tervo et al., (2004) investigated the health professional student attitudes toward
people with disability. A cross sectional survey of 338 students of university of
South Dakota was carried out, using ATDP scale, SADP and RSI . All students’
attitudes were less positive than SADP norms and nursing students held the
least positive opinions. No attitudinal differences by gender, those with
background in disability had more positive attitude. The author concluded that
nursing undergraduate students were at greater risk of holding negative
attitudes and recommend specific educational experiences to promote more
positive attitudes. (Tervo et al., 2004, 913.)
4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Systematic literature (S.R) review will be used for the previous articles.
Systematic review uses existing primary research for secondary data analysis.
In a situation where large volume of data is involved, S. R helps in controlling
the data in a logical way and make use of all the relevant information that
evolved. Most of the time, it is preferable to try S. R for a study before
embarking on a fresh study. (Neale 2009, 63).
There may not be need to conduct a new study anymore. S.R is recommended
before designing a new study because they can identify weaknesses in the
methodology of existing studies and may prevent unnecessary replication.
Systematic literature views systematic review from a very broad angle as a
method with the following features: a clearly defined research question;
transparent methods, defined a priori to include clear criteria for including and
excluding studies; exhaustive searches for published and unpublished studies;
explicit reporting of the methods used to appraise, abstract and synthesize
information from individual studies, conducted in duplicate to minimize errors;
and clear presentation of study findings. (Neale 2009, 65).
The objective of the literature review was to find five to seven research articles
discussing the attitude of nursing students’ toward people with disabilities.The
search for these articles was difficult as very few articles had direct links to free
full text versions. The search took place between September 2010 and April
2011. In the search for the articles three databases were used; Pubmed,
CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Elsevier and manual search. Most of the articles were in
abstract form.The EBSCO was the best of all.The results were limited by the
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
There were several different search terms that were used in hopes of finding
relevant articles. The keywords used to do the search included the following:
disabled, disabilities, student nurses, attitude (see appendix. 1).
The results were too wide and the search criteria had to be further narrowed.
The searches were limited to include only those articles that either provided a
full text version or a link to a full text version.
During the elimination process thousand abstracts were overviewed and then
either eliminated or earmarked as a possibility and returned upon later. In the
end of all the hundreds of articles overviewed only 43 proved to be adequately
linked to the topic and 12 had a link to a full text version. Some of the other
responses were also properly linked to the topic, but did not have a link to a full
text article nor was it possible to find such a link through other search
databases. Others had links to full text articles, but they were not free and they
were purchased via the librarian.
Best 4 were picked from those with full text while others were eliminated based
on meeting the exclusion criteria and 2 relevant articles were bought to meet
up with the number for review. (See the appendix1/(2) for the flow chat.)
Boyle.J Attitudes of Measure the Medical 548 students. Differences between the Better education of
Malcolm et undergraduate attitudes of Condition Monash University. courses. students in students on patient
al. health science undergraduate Regard Scale undergraduate health-related presenting substance
students students (MCRS) Australia courses, as a group, have a abuse.
towards patients enrolled in six strong
with intellectual different health- regard for patients with
disability, related courses intellectual disability and some
substance abuse, regard for patients with acute
and acute mental mental illness, but not for
illness: patients presenting with
a cross-sectional substance abuse problems.
study. 2010
Mantziou,V Attitudes of To examine and Attitudes 99 registered Whole attitude appeared poor. Use of innovative
et al. registered nurses compare the towards nurses,189 student Student nurses had more educational strategies may
and student attitudes of disabled nurses. positive attitude than the have a positive effect on
nurses to disabled nurses and persons’ nurses. Differences between subjects’ attitudes towards
children.2002 student nurses. Scale Greece age groups and students disabled children
(ATDP) educational settings .No
significant differences in
gender.
Klooster Attitudes towards To investigate ATDP-A,SADP 81 Dutch nursing Nursing students were more Educational interventions
Peter M.T people with the attitudes &CLAS-MR students &48 non- positive than their peers. focus on forms of contact
et al. physical or towards people nursing peers. Positive attitude as a result of beyond the context of
intellectual with physical or having a relative or friend with formal care relationships.
disabilities: intellectual Netherland physical disability.
nursing students disabilities.
and non-nursing
peers. 2009
Tervo Health professional student To investigate health ATDP,SA 338 graduate All students’ attitudes Specific
R.C et attitudes towards professional student DP&RSI &undergraduate were less positive. educational
al. people with disability.2004 attitudes toward students. Nursing student experiences are
people with disability University of held least positive. needed to promote
South Dakota USA No attitudinal difference more positive
in gender. Those with attitudes
disability background
are more positive.
Au KW & Attitudes toward people with To explore the ATDP 511 students and Professionals had a Made to modify the
Man D disabilities: a comparison attitudes of health care 489 professionals significantly higher current training
WK between health care professionals and their attitudinal score than the curriculum and
professionals and students towards Hong Kong students. Their attitudes enhance the quality
students.2006 people in Hong Kong were less positive than of services to
with disabilities those of the student develop more
nurses. Age, year of favorable attitudes
study, educational level, towards people
knowledge and contact with disabilities.
with people with
disabilities were
significant factors in the
attitudes held by the
students and professional
respondents
Matziou Attitudes of nurse To investigate the Attitude 228 nursing Nurses’ attitudes Carefully designed
V. et al professionals and nursing attitudes of nurse Towards students, 90 post- appeared to be poor curricula can
students towards children with professionals Disabled diploma nurses 123 influence the
disabilities. (pediatric nurses) and Person nurse attitudes of nursing
Do nurses really overcome nursing students Scale students towards
children’s physical towards disabled (ATDP). Greece children
and mental handicaps?in_735 children. with disabilities.
45 2009
The articles reviewed above (see table 1) were published within 2002 to 2010.
All the articles made used of reasonable sample size. Three of the articles
(Mantziou et al., 2002, 2009 & Au & Man, 2006) compared the attitude of
nursing students and the registered nurses, one (Klooster et al., 2009)
compared the student nurses with the non-nursing peers and one article (Tervo
et al., 2004) involved only nursing students. All the research access the attitude
of health care students. The two studies (Mantziou et al., 2002, 2009) focused
on disabled children, one (Boyle et al.,2010) investigate attitude towards
intellectual disability, substance abuse and acute mental illness.
Pilot study was used in this Bachelor thesis. Pilot study is a small experimental
designed to test logistics and gather information prior to a larger study, in order
to improve the latter’s quality and efficiency. A pilot study reveal deficiencies in
the design of a proposed experiment or procedure. (Altman et al. 2006, 2.)
In this pilot study nursing students were asked questions related to various
aspects of interactions focusing on discomfort in social interactions, coping
when meeting people with disabilities,information about disability and a person’s
vulnerability.
This is 20-item Likert scale designed to measure attitudes toward people with
disabilities by assessing levels of discomfort in social interactions as a central
factor underlying negative attitudes. (Gething 1992, 10.)
The respondent indicates his or her level of agreement with each of the 20
items on the scale. The response for each item range from I agree very much
(6) to I disagree very much (1). There is no mid- or neutral- point on the scale.
Question No. 19 was discarded as evidence emerged from factor analyses
suggest it does not cluster consistently with other variables on a factor. All
remaining items were add up except (Question 10, 14 and 15). Questions 10,
14 and 15 were scored in reverse, and added to total. This gives a Total scale
score (see the appendix 5 for summary of the scoring system). Higher scores
will indicate greater discomfort in social interactions with people with disabilities.
(Gething 1992, 10.)
The study took place during the three months clinical practice in Ghana (Sept.-
Dec. 2010). Simple random sampling was used by the researcher to efficiently
recruit nursing students for this study and to gain insight into the attitude. First,
second and third year students were asked to complete a paper version of the
Interaction with disabled person scale (IDP) in a classroom setting. After giving
verbal consent, 59 successful completed the demographic information and IDP
scale. One student was unable to complete the question. The demographic
information included questions regarding student status, age, gender, contact,
how often are they in contact and to whom do they have contact.
Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS window (version 19). The
methods of statistical analysis that were used included frequencies, percentage,
means and standard deviations to show the distribution of demographic
characteristics and the questionnaire scores.
This pilot study aim to identify the attitudes of nursing students in Ghana in
relation to the existing findings. The total number of sample was sixty with one
missing due to incomplete answer of the scale (N=59). Results are presented in
the following categories: demographic description, IDP scores with the variables
and comparison of the means score with standard deviation classified by age,
gender, college year ,ontact, how often and with whom do you have contact.
Most of the students’ ages were between 21-25 (61.7%); second by the ages
group 17-20(26.7%). Only one subject was over 35 year of age.
Large group of the studying were female (66.7%) while male were (31.7%).
First year students had the highest percentage(40.0%); this was followed by the
third year (31.7%) and 2nd year (26.7%).
This report showed that 81.7% of the students had contact with people with
disabilities and just 16.7% did not have contact.
Figure 5. Percentage of how often the subjects had contact with the disabled
people.
31.7% of the students had contact with disabled people less often than once
every 3 months; followed by students that had at least once a month
(21.7%).The least was in students that had contact once in every 3 months.
40.0% of students had contact with someone they see occassionally; 25.0%
contact others.1.7% of the subjects had contact with classmate that were
disabled and 16.7% had contact with patient that were disabled.
7.2 Interaction with disabled persons scale scores and the variables
Score ; < 55 represent positive attitude, 55-65 represent indifference and >65
represent negative attitude.
Most students had scores above 65 (43%) age (21-25); 12% scores mark
between 55-65 and 4% scores less than 55.
30 female students had scores greater than 65 and 13 male had score above
65. The same number of students male and female scores less than 55.
Among the college years that score above 65,3 rd year had the highest (N=18)
and the second year had the lowest (N=12). Only 1st year had the lowest score
(N=4).
Figure 10. Have you had experiences or contact and the scores.
Among the respondents,35 students had contact with the disabled people and
score above 65. Only 4 respondents scores less than 55.
Figure 11. How often do you have contact and the scores.
Respondents that had often less than once every 3 months had the highest
number (N=16) that scores above 65; respondents that also had contact once
every 3 months (N=9) scores well above 65. Only 4 respondents had daily
contact and scores less than 55.
Figure 12. With whom do they have contact and the scores.
Respondents (N=19) that had contact with someone they see occasionally were
the most among subjects that scores above 65. The same number of
respondents (N=1) scores less than 55 had contact with friend, classmate,
client/patient and someone they see occasionally.
The mean score and the standard deviation of all the respondents on this
questionnaire were 74.76 and 11.22 (N=59), suggesting that the respondents
tended to have negative attitudes toward people with disabilities.
Gender
Male Female Total
Mean 72,05 76,05 74,76
N 19 40 59
Std. Deviation 11,86 10,81 11,22
Female respondents had mean score of 76.05 (SD=10.81) and the male had
72.05 (SD=11.86).This shows negativity in the gender.
Age
17-20 21-25 26-30 over 35
The mean score of the age group 17-20 had the highest (77.06); and lowest
was found in the age group 26-30 (72.00). This revealed no significant
difference in age group and shows social discomfort.
College year
1st yr 2nd yr 3rd yr
Mean 71,12 75,25 78,94
N 24 16 19
Std. Deviation 12,45 9,60 9,70
The third year students had the highest mean score (78.94) and the lowest was
found in the first year (71.12). This college year revealed negativity in social
interaction with disabled people, but there is more difference between the 1st
year and 3rd year students.
The mean score for respondents that had contact was lower (73.51) than the
respondents without contact (80.00). Though this shows negativity but students
that had contact are better.
How often
Less often
than once
At least once a Once every 3 every 3
No contact Daily Weekly month months months
Mean 80,90 67,00 67,87 71,15 75,75 78,73
N 10 5 8 13 4 19
Std. Deviation 10,40 10,34 5,93 10,83 5,50 12,07
Respondents that had daily contact had the lowest mean score (67.00); The
mean score of students with no contact was the highest (80.00).
The mean score of respondents that contact disabled classmates was 51.00,
seconded by those that had them as friends (68.00).The highest was found in
students that do not contact any (79.80).
Table 7. Mean and standard deviation of whom do you have most frequent
contact
All statistics were calculated with version 19.0 of the SPSS programme. In this
study, there were more female (N=40, 66.7%) more than male (N=19, 31.7%).
Among the students(N=60), forty percent were first year students. Most of the
students (N=37,61.7%) were between 21-25 years old.
Most of the students in this study (N=49,81.7%) had previous contact with
disabled people (fig.4). According to how often the students had contact,31.7%
had contact less often than once every three months, 21.7% had contact at
least once a month and 16.7% had no contact (fig.5). With whom do they had
contact ,forty percent of the students (N=24) had frequent contact with someone
they see occasionally and 1.7% had contact with their classmate (fig.6). The
scores of IDP scale ranged from 50 to 94 with the overall mean score of 74.76 ±
11.22, which is considered to be negative.
There were no significant differences between the age and gender with the
mean scores of the students(see table 3 and 4). Slight difference was observed
in the college year between the first year and third year students but the range
still indicate negative attitude (71.13-78.95) (Tab.5).
There was differences in the IDP mean scores of students that had previous
contact (73.5) and students without experiences (80.9). Students that contact
disabled people daily shows significant different in the mean score (67.0)
compare to other students (Tab.7). Furthermore, the type of people they had
contact with also show significant differences, classmate (51.0), friend (68.0),
close family (70.7), patient (72.7), someone I see occasionally (75.7) and no
one (79.8). This results supported most of the previous studies that will be
discussed.
8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Written permission was obtained from Sydney, Australia to use the IDP scale.
(See appendix 4). In Ghana, the researcher consulted the school administrator
for advice and it was determined that there was no need for an application to be
made but verbal consent from the clinical instructor was obtained.
Written and verbal information about the study were given to the students and
they were told that their participation in the study was voluntary. (See appendix
3). Further, the answers were anonymous, the students could not be identified
and the results were reported with no possibility for identification of any
students’ data. ( Etene 2002.)
The scale used in the pilot study had been tested and re-tested, found reliable
and valid (Gething 1992, 19).
10 DISCUSSION
Systematic literature review was used in this study, details about the method is
given in the previous chapter. After gathering the valuable articles, the next line
of action was to analyze the data and make use of them properly.
The pilot study aims to study the attitudes of the nursing students toward people
with disabilities classified by age, gender, educational level, contact, how often ,
to whom do they have contact and to test possibility of cultural inflences. The
samples were 60 nursing students who are currently studying nursing science.
Data was collected in November 2010.There were two instrument used in this
research (1) interaction with disabled persons scale (2) Demographic
questionnaire. Data was analysed by using IBM SPSS version 19.0 for window
to examine the frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
This pilot study demonstrates that nursing students are not showing positive
attitude towards people with disabilities despite the cultural difference from the
previous study. Watanabe (2003, 37) studied cross cultural comparison of
attitudes towards person with disabilities using college students in Japan and
United States , reported no significant difference in the attitude scores. On the
contradiction, Grames & Leverentz (2010,1) observed significant differences
among the three disability types. However, the Chinese reported significantly
higher scores on the ATDP scale, which corresponded with more favorable
attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
To answer the first question, this pilot study showed the attitude of the student
nurses towards people with disabilities is not positive (Mean score = 74.76 ±
11.22). This is in line with the findings of Mantziou et al. (2002 & 2009) which
highlight the overall the overall negative attitude towards disabled among the
Greek student nurses. Tervo et al. (2004, 908) also reported that nursing
students held the least positive opinion about the disabled among all the health
professional students. Au & Man (2006, 155) found the nursing students to be
in third place among group of four students which showed negative impression.
Klooster et al. (2009, 2562) reported positive attitude, this was compared to the
non-nursing peers. Boyle et al. (2010, 2) also showed that student’s attitude
was positive because of the perceptive of viewing disability as a medical
condition. This form of inconsistency was early reported in many articles and
that is why it called for further research.
To address the second research question, the mean scores of the attitude and
the variables in this pilot study (Tables 2-7) showed differences in the students
that had contact, how often they had contact and with whom they had contact.
There were no significant differences in age and gender but slight different was
noted between the 1st and 3rd college year (Table 4). This is similar to previous
studies. Ouellette et al. (2010, 132) reported that participants who had contact
with family member with intellectual disability showed positive attitude. Stachura
& Garven (2003, 653) and Schafer et al (2010,1) also found that personal
contact with someone with mental illness was a significant factor, the more the
contact students had with disabled people, the more positive their attitude. Most
of the research works do not test for the time of contact and with whom do they
have contact but they suggested it.
This pilot study revealed that students that had contact daily and weekly had
more positive attitude than students that do not have contact and had contact
less often than once every 3 months (Table 6). This implies that regular
proximity to the disabled people can actually break the barrier of students’
negative behavior.
From the six articles reviewed, there was still different factors considered but
mostly implicated factors were:
1. Gender
2. Educational level
3. Contact with disabled people
The third question investigates the possible ways to improve the student nurses’
attitude. Different articles gave various ways to improve the students’ attitude;
Shakespeare et al. (2009, 1816) suggested that visiting patients in their own
homes enables students to understand disabled people in context and
appreciate what their capabilities are. Shakespeare sited a positive results have
been reported from programmes where pediatrics residents spend time with
families of children with disabilities in their homes. Student nurses need the
skills and knowledge to equip them to provide safe and enabling care for
everyone they encounter, including patients who are in any way ‘different’,
Seccombe (2007, 450) suggested. The six reviewed articles unanimously
agreed on the following ways to improve the attitude:
1. Use of specific and innovative educational strategies.
2. Educational interventions focus on forms of contact beyond the context of
formal care relationships.
3. Long hours work experience with disabled people.
The limitations of this study include different scales used in the reviewed articles
for measurement. In the pilot study, only one school and the number of students
used makes it difficult to generalize the attitude of nursing students in Africa.
11 CONCLUSION
The researcher recommend further studies should be carried out to test for the
effect of types and duration of contact. Constant research studies should be
carried out on the nursing students to know their attitude status before complete
degradation.
REFERENCES
Altman.; Burton,N.; Cuthill,I.; Festing,M.; Hutton,J. & Playle,L. 2006 . Why do a pilot study?
National centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. .
Consulted 2.2.2011 http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=400
Au, K.W & Man, D.W. 2006. Attitudes toward people with disabilities: a comparison between
health care professionals and students. Int J Rehabil Res. Vol 29(2):155-60.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16609328
Barbotte, E.; Guillemin,F.; Chau,N & the Lorhandicap group. 2001. Prevalence of impairments,
disabilities, handicaps and quality of life in the general population: A review of recent literature.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol, 79 No 11. 1047-1055
Biritwum, R.B.; Devres, J.P.; Ofosu-Amaahs, S.; Marfo, L. & Essah, E.R. 2001. Prevalence of
children with disabilities in central region, Ghana. West African Journal of medicine. Abstract,
Vol. 20. No 3, 249-55. Consulted 17.9.2010 http://ovidsp.uk.ovid.com/sp
Dorji, S. & Solomon, P. 2009. Attitudes of health professionals toward persons with disabilities
in Bhutan. India. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal Vol. 20 No. 2/2009, 32-42.
Consulted 21.09.2010. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid
Etene. 2002. Shared values in health care,common goals and principles. Etene publications
3/2002. Consulted 30.3.2011 http://www.etene.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=63023&f
Gething, L. 1992. Interaction with disabled persons scale. Sydney. University of Sydney. Pg 3-
20.
Grames, M & Leverentz, C. 2010. Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities: A Comparison of
Chinese and American Students. Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 8, 1-6. Consulted
29.3.2011 http://www.uwlax.edu/URC/JUR-online/PDF/2010/grames&leverentz.pdf
Johnston, C. & Dixon, R. 2006. Nursing students’ attitudes towards people with disabilities: can
they be changed? Australia: University of Sydney. Consulted 17.09.2010.
http://www.aare.edu.au
Klooster, T.; Dannenberg, J.W.; Taal, E.; Burger, G. & Rasker, J.J. 2009. Attitudes towards
people with physical or intellectual disabilities: nursing students and non-nursing peers. Journal
of Advanced Nursing.Netherland. Vol. 65 No. 12, 2562–2573. (doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2009.05146.x) Consulted 30.11.2010. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfview
Kim, K.; Park, Y.H, Lee, B.S, & Kim, J.Y. 2010. Comparison of the Attitudes Toward and
Contact with Disabled Person among Health Care Professionals, Lay Persons, and Disabled
Persons. Korean Journal of Rehabil. Nurs. Vol.13 (1):13-22. Consulted 20.12.2010
http://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?
Lollar, D.J. & Crews, J.E. 2003. Redefining the role of public health in disability. Annu Rev
Public Health, Vol. 24:195-208. Consulted 25.3.2011 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf.
Mantaziou, V.; Brocalaki,I.; Andrea,S.; Ktenas,E.; Chatira,K. & Kotzabassaki,S. 2002. Attitudes
of registered nurses and student nurses to disabled children. British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 11,
No 17/2002. Consulted 20 .09.2010 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=
Mishra,S.K.2006. Social stereotpyes and attitudes towards disability. International Council for
education of people with visual impairment. Consulted 20.2.2011 http://www.icevi.org/publicatio
Neale, J. 2009. Research method for health and social care. United Kingdom: Palgrave
Macmillan. Consulted 19.09.2009
Pfeiffer,D.; Sam, A.A.; Guinan,M.; Ratliffe,K.T.; Robinson,N.B.& Stodden,N.J. 2004. Ethnic and
religious perspectives on disability and the helping professions. The Social Science Journal
Vol.41. 683–687. Consulted 20.2.2011 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
Rao, H.; Mahadevappa, H.; Pillay, P.; Sessay, M.; Abraham ,A. & Luty, J. 2009. A study of
stigmatized attitudes towards people with mental health problems among health professionals.
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing Vol. 16, 279–284. Consulted 23.3.2011
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=21&hid=24&sid=6c62f8b9-f703-4e54-
bb80-69cdfaacf4a7%40sessionmgr15
Schoen, B.; Shannon, C.D. & Tansey, T.N. 2009. The Effect of Contact, Context, and Social
Power on Undergraduate Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation.
Vol.75, No. 4/2009, 1118. Consulted 20.11.2010
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.turkuamk.fi/science.
Schafer.T; Wood, S. & Williams, R. 2010. A survey into student nurses’ attitudes towards mental
illness: Implications for nurse training. Nurse Education Today. Vol. 31, Issue 4, 328-332
Consulted 25.3.2011 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey
Sen, E & Yurtsever, S. 2007. Difficulties Experienced by Families With Disabled Children. JSPN
Vol. 12, No. 4.238-252 Consulted 20.3.2011 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer
Shakespeare,T.; Lezzoni,L.I. & Groce, N.E. 2009. The art of medicine. Disability and the
training of health professionals. Perspectives.Vol. 374,1815-1816.
Smeltzer, S.C. 2007. Improving the health and wellness of persons with disabilities: a call to
action too important for nursing to ignore. Nurs Outlook. Vol.55 (4):189-195.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678684
Tervo, R.C.; Palmer, G. & Redinius, P. 2004. Health professional student attitudes towards
people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 18, 908-915. Consulted 20.09.2010
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.turkuamk.fi/science.
United States Agency for International Development. 2009. The Prevalence of disability in
Europe and Eurasia. Final report. Consulted 17.09.2010. http://dec.usaid.gov
World Health Organization. 2004. Global Burden of Disease Report. Disease incidence,
prevalence and disability. Part 3, 31-36. Available also at http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global
attitude 60892
nurses 180150
paraplegia 42520
epilepsy 564
exceptional 1
handicaps 548
impairment 328
physical disability 27
severe disability 79
mental disability 0
behavioral disability 62
disability 20
disabled 25169
disable 39
(N = 237) (N = 150)
Identification
(N = 110)
(N = 29)
(N = 43)
Screening
No=6
13.09.2010
Dear Olasoji
Please find attached a copy of the IDP scale and scoring manual. Also included are a
sample consent form and a sample background demographics page – you will need to
adapt these as required to suit your requirements. Lindsay Gething, who developed the
scale, has retired. The IDP is now free, so there is no charge for its use. Please get
back to me if you have any questions.
Cheers
Judith Fethney
Dear Student,
I ask you kindly to answer the questions below; it will take about ten minutes. The
information obtained from the questioners will be handled completely in confidence and
anonymously. The finished thesis will be placed for viewing at the library of Turku
University of Applied Sciences Salo Unit. At the request I will also send the finished
thesis to your school.
Thanks you for your participation. If you want further information please contact me.
Olasoji Awoyera
Student in Degree Program in Nursing
Turku University of Applied Sciences
Salo, Finland. SNUS08
E-mail:olasoji.awoyera@students.turkuamk.fi
Phone:+358466699069
APPENDIX 4
Here is a list of statements that some people have said describe how they feel when they have contact with a person
with a disability. Of course, how we respond to people depends on how well we know them as individuals. However we
would like to know how you feel in general when you meet a person with a disability. Please read each statement
carefully and decide how much it describes how you feel.
Please place one tick next to the question under the column that describes how you feel.
very much
very much
somewhat
somewhat
I disagree
I disagree
I disagree
I agree
I agree
I agree
a little
a little
1 1
It is rewarding when I am able to help
3 3
I feel frustrated because I don’t know how to help
15 After frequent contact, I find I just notice the person not the disability 15
I feel better with people with disabilities after I have discussed their
19 19
disability with them
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
5. Marital Status
Single---
Married----
Widow-----
Widower---
6. College Year
1st year----
2nd year----
3rd year----
4th year----
7. College Major
Diploma---
B.Sc General Nursing---
Public health nursing----