Reflective Journal Study
Reflective Journal Study
                                                                    A bstract
Background of the Study: Anxiety disorders are among the most common mental disorders in all age groups and they are associated
with short‑term and long‑term impairment in social, academic, familial, and psychological functioning. The purpose of this study was
to evaluate the impact of psychological interventions to decrease anxiety thereby improving the wellness level of patients with anxiety
disorder. Methods: A quasi‑experimental research design (a nonequivalent control group design) for evaluating the effectiveness of
the psychological intervention on anxiety and wellness level among neurotic patients (n = 100). Psychological interventions consisted
of psychoeducation and simple relaxation exercises was administered. Results: The study findings revealed that in pre‑test, there
is no significant difference between experimental and control groups, but in post‑test significant difference is observed between
experimental group and control group as depicted by the t values at first post‑test was t = 2.04 at P = 0.04, df = 98, at third month
post‑test t = 6.32 at P = 0.001, df = 98 and at sixth month post‑test t = 11.03 at P = 0.001, df = 98. The experimental group patients
are having 20.3% anxiety reduction and 23.0% improved wellness score, whereas in control group anxiety reduction is only 1.4% and
only 2.4% improved wellness score which shows the effectiveness of psychological intervention. Interpretation and Conclusion: The
results demonstrated the importance of improving patient’s awareness of anxiety and how to manage and access help. Nurses can
play a vital role in screening and managing anxiety, and educating people in strategies to prevent episodes of panic. This nurse‑led
intervention, increased perceived self‑efficacy in patients with anxiety disorders, compared with control patients.
Keywords: Anxiety, anxiety disorder patients, nursing interventional package, wellness level
© 2022 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow                                                                           6704
               Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
Figure 1: Multiple Bar Diagram Showing Pre‑test Level of Anxiety                Figure 2: Multiple Bar Diagram Showing Pre‑test Level of Wellness
Score of Neurotic Patients                                                      Score of Neurotic Patients
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                              6705                                  Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
               Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
stress‑related disorders are commonly encountered in primary care             Along with psychosocial approaches studies support that exercise,
settings where they are usually missed or misdiagnosed. Among                 sleep, hygiene and self-care activities are effective means of
the major mental disorders that manifest predominantly during                 treatment of such patient[8] psychoeducational intervention is
adulthood, the crude prevalence for both depressive disorders and             based on cognitive behavioral principles and have better effect
anxiety disorders was 3.3% (3.1–3.6 for depressive disorders and              on worry symptoms and reduction of anxiety therefore due
3.0–3.5 for anxiety disorders).[1] Psychosocial care is increasingly          to multipronged nature, psychoeducation can be suited to any
recognized as an essential component of the comprehensive care                mental health setting.[9]
of neurotic disorders. Improving patients’ access to psychosocial
care is important. Among the mental disorders that manifest                                    Materials and Methods
predominantly during adulthood, the highest disease burden in
India was caused by depressive and anxiety disorders, followed by             This study adopted a single‑blind quasi‑experimental study
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Kyu 2018) To give high‑quality            comprising of a group of 100 neurotic patients (50 experimental
care, it is essential that mental health nurses have a solid grasp            group and 50 control group) selected through purposive sampling
of the most common therapies and interventions used in mental                 from outpatient clinics in three mental hospitals in Chhattisgarh. The
healthcare. If nurses understand, what the various interventions              samples were fulfilling the criteria of age 20 years or more with no
involve then they will be much better equipped to support                     major visual or motor handicap or other chronic diseases, diagnosed
patients through their recovery.[4] A range of psychological and              with neurotic/anxiety disorders by psychiatrists of selected mental
psychosocial treatments for depression and anxiety (including                 hospitals of Chhattisgarh, willing to cooperate, and provide consent
depression with a chronic physical health problem) have been                  for the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics
shown to relieve the symptoms of depression and there is growing              Committee of Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai
evidence that psychological and psychosocial therapies can help               Manopchar Hospital Mana Raipur, and CIIMHANS Anjora Durg.
people recover from depression in the longer‑term relaxation                  Both groups matched on various socio‑demographic correlates. To
training is effective in reducing anxiety in all participants for             judge the similarity of two groups, a pre‑test or pre‑measurement was
anxiety disorders and increase the quality of life.[5,6] People with          made in the “before” time period. Consecutive eligible patients who
depression often prefer psychological and psychosocial treatments             scored more than 17 on Sinha’s Comprehensive Anxiety Test (SCAT)
to medication (Prins et al., 2008) and value outcomes beyond                  were randomly assigned to experimental group who was administered
symptom reduction that include positive mental health and a                   psychological intervention and to control group with standard care.
return to usual functioning (Zimmerman et al, 2006) management
options for anxiety disorders include psychoeducation,                        Data were collected using socio‑demographic datasheet, Freeman
psychological treatment and pharmacological treatments.[7] This               et al. Wellness Assessment Tool, SCAT and Rathus Assertiveness
improves health outcomes by optimizing self‑care skills, engaging             Schedule, physiological parameters such as self checking of pulse
family and community supports, and promoting early recognition                and respiration before and after intervention and at 3 months
of problems and appropriate interventions.                                    and 6 months post‑intervention. Socio‑demographic datasheet
                                                                              included age and gender, education, family income, residence and
Within the limitations placed on modern mental healthcare, it is              marital status, main feature of illness, adherence to treatment,
a challenge for the nurses to take the responsibility of providing            frequency of admission to hospital, participation in social activity,
evidence‑based holistic nursing interventions for anxiety disorder            occupational status and frequency of change of employment,
patients. Moreover, such studies are woefully inadequate in the               functional level of patient, year of onset of illness and type of
Indian context. Although neurotic/anxiety disorders are the                   family. Data were collected using face‑to‑face interview method.
commonest mental disorders, they receive scant attention. It is
useful to devote attention to the management of these mental                  Psychological interventions was administered to experimental
disorders because they are the commonest mental disorders in                  group with routine care and control group is given only the
the general population. Considering the above‑stated factors,                 routine care. Routine care included administration of anti‑anxiety
the investigator felt the need to address psychosocial aspects of             medicines and general advice by doctors and other health team
anxiety disorders and the present investigation makes an earnest              members. Psychological intervention was planned in two sessions
effort to plan psychological interventions to decrease anxiety                for 2 days in the experimental group. First session was held on
thereby improving the wellness level of neurotic patients. The                Day 1 and second session on Day 2, that is, one session each on
present study also helps to make society and government aware                 both days. First session on Day 1 comprised of administration
of the mental health needs of the population and take necessary               of pre‑test followed by group discussion on anxiety and its
steps for the development of the same.                                        effects on the respondents, psycho‑education on anxiety and
                                                                              its management. The session lasted for one and half hours. In
The objectives of the study were to assess the socio‑demographic              the second session, review of the previous sessions, followed
profile of the neurotic patients, pre‑interventional level of                 by simple relaxation therapy and checking of physiological
anxiety and wellness of the neurotic patients, and to evaluate                parameters, that is, pulse and respiration were done. This was
the effectiveness of psychological interventions on the anxiety               followed by feedback and post‑test on second day after second
and wellness level among anxiety disorder patients.                           session. This session lasted for one and half hours. So, total of
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                            6706                                    Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
               Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
2 hours per group. Each group constituted of 10 respondents.                   pre interventional level of wellness score was low to moderate
In the control group, only one session was utilized. This session              in experimental and control group as depicted in [Figure 2].
included the administration of pre‑test followed by feedback and
post‑test. The time taken for the session was one and half hours.              Section 3: Association between anxiety and selected
Post‑test was done again at 3 and 6 months for both groups.                    socio‑demographic variables
The collected data were analyzed using statistical package of social           Association between anxiety and selected socio‑demographic
sciences (SPSS) 12. First, the socio‑demographic characteristics               variables
were presented as frequency, percentage, average, and SD. Second,
the general characteristics of the experimental and control groups             In the experimental group, the association between post‑test
were analyzed using t‑test, and Chi‑square test. Major variables               level of anxiety and their demographic variables in [Table 2]
such as anxiety and wellness were analyzed using independent                   depicted that elders, more educated, employed, and complete
samples t‑test. Third, to test the effectiveness of the psychological          adherence patients are having more reduced anxiety than others.
intervention, the comparison of the differences before and after               In the control group, none of the demographic variables are
the intervention on anxiety and wellness was analyzed using                    significantly associated with their post‑test level of anxiety. In
repeated analysis of co variance (ANOVA) measurements.                         post‑test considering level of anxiety, there is statistically significant
                                                                               difference between experimental group and control group as
                               Results                                         the Chi‑square values at first post‑test is (c2 = 8.31, P = 0.03***,
                                                                               df = 2), at third month post‑test is (c2 = 34.03, P = 0.001***,
The analysis of data was organized and presented under the                     df = 2), and at sixth month is (c2 = 52.73, P = 0.001***, df = 2).
following headings:                                                            Statistical significance was calculated using Pearson Chi‑square
    Section 1:     Analysis of socio‑demographic characteristics               test. It was inferred that there was no significant difference in the
    of study subjects.                                                         pre‑test anxiety between the experimental group and the control
    Section 2:     Distribution of subjects according to the level             group, whereas in the experimental group there was significant
    of anxiety and wellness                                                    difference in the post‑test anxiety scores.
    Section 3:     Association between anxiety and selected
    socio‑demographic variables                                                Section 4:      Association between wellness and selected
    Section 4:     Association between wellness and selected                   socio‑demographic variables
    socio‑demographic variables
    Section 5:     Evaluate the effectiveness of psychological                 Association between wellness and selected
    intervention on level of anxiety and wellness.                             socio‑demographic variables
Section 1:         Analysis of socio‑demographic characteristics               In the experimental group, the association between post‑test
of study subjects.                                                             level of anxiety and their demographic variables depicted that
                                                                               more education, occupation, and more income have significantly
The socio‑demographic profile is shown in Table 1. As per                      gained more wellness scores than others as shown in [Table 3].
socio‑demographic variables amongst two groups, it can be
concluded that both the groups were comparable with regard to                  The data presented in [Table 4 and Figures 3 and 4] show that the
the age, educational status, and age of onset of illness, whereas              Karl Pearson correlation coefficient in the experimental group
it differed in other socio‑demographic characteristics such as                 is r = −0.66 and in the control group is r = −0.30. The findings
educational status, marital status, etc.                                       reveal that there is a fair negative correlation between sixth month
                                                                               post‑test anxiety and wellness score. Results indicate that level
Section 2:        Distribution of subjects according to the level              of wellness increase when anxiety level decreases and vice versa.
of anxiety and wellness
                                                                               Section 5: Evaluate the effectiveness of psychological
Pre‑interventional level of anxiety and wellness score                         intervention on level of anxiety and wellness.
Out of the 100 patients who participated in the study, majority                The Tables 5 and 6 shows the comparison between experimental
i.e. 68% of the patients were having mild anxiety and, 88% of                  group and control group score was analyzed using students’
them were having moderate level of wellness in the experimental                independent t‑test. In pre‑test, there is no significant difference
group, 88% of the patients were having mild anxiety, and 90% of                between experimental group and control group, but in post‑test
them were having moderate level of wellness in the control group.              significant difference is observed between experimental group
Experimental group patients are having 123.36 wellness score of                and control group as depicted by the t values at first post‑test was
200, whereas in control group it is 122.58 of 200. It is inferred              t = 2.04 at P = 0.04, df = 98, at third month post‑test t = 6.32
that pre‑interventional level of anxiety was higher in both                    at P = 0.001, df = 98, and at sixth month post‑test t = 11.03
control and experimental groups as depicted in [Figure 1] and                  at P = 0.001, df = 98. Findings reveal that there is consistent
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                             6707                                      Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
                 Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
significant difference between experimental and control group at                  an effect on anxiety reduction and it is sustained even at sixth
third and sixth month which means that the treatment produced                     month post‑test. Comparison of pre‑test and post‑test anxiety
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                                6708                                   Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
                 Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
            Table 2: Association between post‑test level of anxiety and demographic variables (Experimental group)
Demographic variable       Items                                               Posttest Level of Anxiety                      Total     Chi square
                                                                       Normal            Mild              Moderate                        test
                                                                    n       %        n         %         n       %
Gender                     Male                                     14    66.7%      6       28.6%       1      4.8%           21     χ2=0.51 P=0.77
                           Female                                   22    75.9%      6       20.7%       1      3.4%           29         DF=2
Age                        <20 yrs                                  5     41.7%      5       41.7%       2     16.6%           12        χ2=15.03
                           20‑30 yrs                                8     61.5%      5       38.5%       0      0.0%           13     P=0.02* DF=6
                           30‑40 yrs                                18    90.0%      2       10.0%       0      0.0%           20
                           >40 yrs                                  5     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           5
Education                  Primary/middle                           9     42.8%      10      47.6%       2      9.5%           21       χ2=16.27
                           High school                              12    85.7%      2       14.3%       0      0.0%           14     P=0.03* DF=8
                           Under Graduate                           11    100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           11
                           Post Graduate                            2     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           2
                           Professional                             2     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           2
Occupation                 Employed                                 11    100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           11        χ2=13.80
                           Self‑employed                            11    100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           11        P=0.01**
                           Unemployed                               14    50.0%      12      42.8%       2      7.2%           28         DF=4
Marital status             Married                                  21    65.6%      9       28.1%       2      6.3%           32     χ2=2.81 P=0.59
                           Separated                                3     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           3          DF=4
                           Single/Unmarried                         12    80.0%      3       20.0%       0      0.0%           15
Residence                  Pucca house in Urban area                24    66.7%      11      30.6%       1      2.8%           36     χ2=5.15 P=0.52
                           Pucca house in Rural area                3     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           3          DF=6
                           Kutcha house in Urban                    6     75.0%      1       12.5%       1     12.5%           8
                           Kutcha house in Rural                    3     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           3
Monthly income             No income                                10    55.6%      7       38.9%       1      5.6%           18     χ2=4.98 P=0.75
                           < 2000                                   5     83.3%      1       16.7%       0      0.0%           6          DF=8
                           Rs. 2000‑5000                            1     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           1
                           Rs. 5000‑10000                           8     80.0%      2       20.0%       0      0.0%           10
                           >Rs. 10000                               12    80.0%      2       13.3%       1      6.7%           15
Changing Employment        Never                                    23    74.2%      7       22.6%       1      3.2%           31     χ2=4.24 P=0.64
                           1‑3 times                                6     85.7%      1       14.3%       0      0.0%           7          DF=6
                           >3 times                                 2     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           2
                           NA                                       5     50.0%      4       40.0%       1     10.0%           10
Age of Onset of Illness    10‑20 years                              9     75.0%      3       25.0%       0      0.0%           12     χ2=5.12 P=0.52
                           20‑30 years                              8     61.5%      5       38.5%       0      0.0%           13         DF=6
                           30‑40 years                              15    75.0%      3       15.0%       2     10.0%           20
                           > 40 years                               4     80.0%      1       20.0%       0      0.0%           5
Socialization of Patient   Not socialize and remain at home         10    76.9%      2       15.4%       1      7.7%           13     χ2=2.12 P=0.71
                           Talk when spoken to                      16    72.7%      5       22.7%       1      4.5%           22         DF=4
                           Normal                                   10    66.7%      5       33.3%       0      0.0%           15
Main Feature of Illness    Not attending daily routine activities   2     50.0%      2       50.0%       0      0.0%           4      χ2=1.69 P=0.42
                           Anxiety/Apprehension                     34    73.9%      10      21.7%       2      4.3%           46         DF=2
Adherence to               Complete adherence                       17    100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           17        χ =10.78
                                                                                                                                          2
Treatment                  Non adherence, Very rarely               5     83.3%      1       16.7%       0      0.0%           6      P=0.05* DF=4
                           Not taking medicine                      15    55.5%      10      37.0%       2      7.4%           27
Frequency of               Once                                     33    70.2%      12      25.5%       2      4.3%           47     χ2=1.24 P=0.53
Hospitalization            Twice                                    3     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           3          DF=4
Functional Level of        Need supervision                         2     50.0%      2       50.0%       0      0.0%           4      χ2=1.69 P=0.43
Patient                    Independent                              34    73.9%      10      21.7%       2      4.3%           46         DF=4
Type of Family             Nuclear family                           12    66.7%      6       33.3%       0      0.0%           18     χ2=9.97 P=0.13
                           Joint family                             21    75.0%      6       21.4%       1      3.6%           28         DF=6
                           Extended family                          1     50.0%      0        0.0%       1     50.0%           2
                           Single                                   2     100.0%     0        0.0%       0      0.0%           2
score was analyzed using one‑way ANOVA F‑test. In experimental                  which is highly significant, that is, greater than the table value at
group, there is a significant difference between pre‑test and                   P ≤ 0.001 level of significance at df = 98, the data signifies that
post‑test and in control group, no significant difference was                   the NIP was very effective in reducing anxiety level. The obtained
found. As the “F” value calculated for experimental group is 54.84              F values were significant in experimental group.
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                              6709                                   Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
                      Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
    Table 3: Association between post‑test level of wellness and demographic variables (Experimental group) n=50+50
Demographic variables                           Variable                                         Post‑test level of wellness        Total        Chi‑square test
                                                                                                Moderate              High
                                                                                              n         %          n        %
Gender                                          Male                                          8       38.1%        13     61.9%      21        χ2=0.61 P=0.43 df=1
                                                Female                                        8       27.6%        21     72.4%      29
Age                                             <20 yrs                                       3       25.0%        9      75.0%      12        χ2=3.41 P=0.49 df=3
                                                20‑30 yrs                                     6       46.2%        7      53.8%      13
                                                30‑40 yrs                                     6       30.0%        14     70.0%      20
                                                >40 yrs                                       1       20.0%        4      80.0%      5
Education                                       Primary/middle                                12      57.1%        9      42.9%      21       χ2=11.35 P=0.02* df=4
                                                High school                                   3       21.4%        11     78.6%      14
                                                Under Graduate                                2       18.2%        9      81.8%      11
                                                Post Graduate                                 0        0.0%        2     100.0%      2
                                                Professional                                  0        0.0%        2     100.0%      2
Occupation                                      Employed                                      2       18.2%        9      81.8%      11        χ2=6.29 P=0.04* df=2
                                                Self‑employed                                 1        9.1%        10     90.9%      11
                                                Unemployed                                    13      46.4%        15     53.6%      28
Marital status                                  Married                                       10      31.3%        22     68.7%      32        χ2=0.02P=0.98 df=2
                                                Separated                                     1       33.3%        2      66.7%      3
                                                Single/Unmarried                              5       33.3%        10     66.7%      15
Residence                                       Pucca house in Urban area                     14      38.9%        22     61.1%      36        χ2=3.59 P=0.30 df=3
                                                Pucca house in Rural area                     0        0.0%        3     100.0%      3
                                                Kutcha house in Urban area                    1       12.5%        7      87.5%      8
                                                Kutcha house in Rural area                    1       33.3%        2      66.7%      3
Monthly income                                  No income                                     9       50.0%        9      50.0%      18        χ2=9.71 P=0.04* df=4
                                                <2000                                         2       33.3%        4      66.7%      6
                                                Rs. 2000‑5000                                 1      100.0%        0      0.0%       1
                                                Rs. 5000‑10000                                0        0.0%        10    100.0%      10
                                                >Rs. 10000                                    4       26.7%        11     73.3%      15
Changing Employment                             Never                                         11      35.5%        20     64.5%      31        χ2=4.95 P=0.17 df=3
                                                1‑3 times                                     1       14.3%        6      85.7%      7
                                                >3 times                                      0        0.0%        2     100.0%      2
                                                NA                                            4       40.0%        6      60.0%      10
Age of Onset of Illness                         10‑20 years                                   3       25.0%        9      75.0%      12        χ2=2.41 P=0.49 df=3
                                                20‑30 years                                   6       46.2%        7      53.8%      13
                                                30‑40 years                                   6       30.0%        14     70.0%      20
                                                >40 years                                     1       20.0%        4      80.0%      5
Socialization of Patient                        Not socialize and remain at home              4       30.8%        9      69.2%      13        χ2=0.02 P=0.98 df=2
                                                Talk when spoken to                           7       31.8%        15     68.2%      22
                                                Normal                                        5       33.3%        10     66.7%      15
Main Feature of Illness                         Not attending daily routine activities        3       75.0%        1      25.0%      4         χ2=3.69 P=0.06 df=2
                                                Anxiety/Apprehension                          13      28.3%        33     71.7%      46
Adherence to Treatment                          Complete adherence                            7       41.2%        10     58.8%      17        χ2=1.37 P=0.50 df=2
                                                Non adherence, Very rarely                    1       16.7%        5      83.3%      6
                                                Not taking medicine                           8       29.6%        19     70.4%      27
Frequency of Hospitalization                    Once                                          16      34.0%        31     66.0%      47        χ2=1.50P=0.22 df=1
                                                Twice                                                              3     100.0%      3
Functional Level of Patient                     Need supervision                              3       75.0%        1      25.0%      4         χ2=3.69 P=0.06 df=1
                                                Independent                                   13      28.3%        33     71.7%      46
Type of Family                                  Nuclear family                                6       33.3%        12     66.7%      18        χ2=0.76 P=0.82 df=3
                                                Joint family                                  8       28.6%        20     71.4%      28
                                                Extended family                               1       50.0%        1      50.0%      2
                                                Single                                        1       50.0%        1      50.0%      2
*Significant at P≤0.05 ** highly significant at P≤0.01 ***very high significant at P≤0.001
The experimental g roup patients are having 20.3%                                                   reduction, experimental group patients are having 23.0%
anxiety reduction, whereas in control group it is only 1.4%                                         improved wellness score whereas in control group it is only
which clearly shows the effectiveness of NIP on anxiety                                             2.4%.
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                                                  6710                                 Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
                      Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
                    Table 6: Comparison of overall wellness between experimental group and control group, n=50+50
Wellness                                             Experimental                                       Control                                    Student’s
                                               Mean                  SD                        Mean                   SD                       Independent t‑test
Pre‑test                                       123.36               12.54                      122.58                12.90            t=0.30, P=0.76, df=98, not significant
Post‑test                                      131.41               13.82                      122.96                12.67             t=3.19, P=0.01**, df=98, significant
Third month                                    155.06                7.80                      126.48                10.80           t=17.19, P=0.001***, df=98, significant
Sixth month                                    169.94                6.87                      127.41                10.58           t=25.75, P=0.001***, df=98, significant
One‑way ANOVA, F‑test                        F=215.84, P=0.001***, significant                F=2.04, P=0.10, not significant
*Significant at P≤0.05; **highly significant at P≤0.01; ***very high significant at P≤0.001
The Tables 5 and 6 presents the results of analysis based on                                         nurses have a unique role: they promote the psychological health
variances based on the overall clinical symptoms of the study                                        of individuals, families, and communities and help people deal with
group. For this purpose, the study groups were divided into eight                                    grief, crisis, or developmental difficulties. They also care for those
subgroups, the first four groups are the experimental groups at four                                 with intractable illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and
levels of assessment, that is, group refers to nursing intervention                                  posttraumatic stress disorder. The focus of caring for the client
baseline data, group 2 refers to first post‑test after nursing                                       is also based on the continuum of psychiatric nursing care, from
intervention, group 3 refers to nursing intervention after 3 months,                                 emergency units to inpatient units to the community, where the
and group 4 refers to nursing intervention after 6 months. Likewise,                                 emphasis on contemporary psychiatric nursing, that is, caring for
the control group at the respective levels of assessments are                                        client and their families in the community and with helping them
represented by groups 5–8. The analysis of variance shows that                                       mobilize community resources.[10]
there is a statistically significant difference among the groups in
respect of clinical symptoms are more than differences within the                                    Psychiatric nursing can be seen as a dynamic interplay between
groups as depicted in [Figures 5 and 6]. To find out which groups                                    the nurse and the patient that encompasses knowledge and
are significantly different, post hoc test Seheffe procedure revealed                                skillful application of the concept of behavior, personality, the
that there is a statistical difference among the groups at 0.05 level.                               mind, psychopathology and most importantly, the process of
                                                                                                     interpersonal relationship. This implies that the nurse must have
                                                                                                     an awareness of herself, her behavior, her needs, and her ways of
Tables 5 and 6 also portrays the mean, SD, standard error, t value,
                                                                                                     relating and handling stress whether she is to see clearly where her
and levels of significance of both groups in all four phases of
                                                                                                     problems and responses end and where the patient’s begin. This
assessment in relation to overall clinical symptom (anxiety and
                                                                                                     is of prime importance because the identification and evaluation
wellness level). It is observed that there is a difference between the
                                                                                                     of patient’s behavior are paramount in establishing an effective
mean score of experimental and control group. The difference is
                                                                                                     nursing care plan approach. This implies the need for empathy
found to be statistically significant indicating the effect of nursing
                                                                                                     qualities in mental health nurse and the importance of developing
intervention in reduction of clinical symptoms in experimental                                       empathy‑based nurse–patient relationship is perhaps one of the
group compared with control group.                                                                   nurse’s most important therapeutic tools. The psychiatric nurse
                                                                                                     must use herself and her total personality as the main implement
The role of nurses in providing clinical care                                                        for effective care. Physical manipulative skills are limited here
Psychiatric nurses use a number of interpersonal and communication                                   because the nurse meets the patient on a communication level,
skills to help clients cope with their psychiatric problems. Psychiatric                             social and recreational activities serve as a bridge to open
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                                                   6711                                    Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
                 Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
communication. Psychiatric nursing is comprehensive nursing care.                             The concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention
This suggests the acknowledgment of the patient as a total person                             provides a framework for discussing psychiatric nursing activities
who possesses the needs concerning all inspects of life‑ physical,                            primary prevention is a community concept. It is a concept that
psychological, social, environmental, religions, occupational, and                            precedes disease and is applied to a generally healthy population.
recreational. Thus, the role of psychiatric nurse of the day is far                           Nursing goal is to decrease the vulnerability of individuals to
different from that of the psychiatric nurse of the past, whose job                           illness and to strengthen their capacity to withstand stressors.
was to “take care” of the hospitalized mental patients.
                                                                                              In secondary prevention, the nursing goal becomes the reduction
Given its high prevalence and burden for anxiety disorders and                                of actual illness by early detection and treatment of the problems.
existence of treatment barriers there is a clear need for brief                               In tertiary presentation, nursing goal is to reduce the residual
inexpensive effective intervention such as psychoeducation.[7,11,12]                          impairment or disability resulting from an illness.
Psychiatric‑mental health nursing has evolved into a unique                                   Psychiatric nurses become members of multidisciplinary team,
discipline. It now combines the knowledge, experience, and skills                             having members of different disciplines who each provide
of nursing and mental health. In actuality, the term psychiatric                              specific services to the patient and a member of interdisciplinary
mental health nursing implies two different areas of nursing that                             team, having members of different disciplines involved
often interact and overlap. Psychiatric nursing focuses on the care                           in a formal arrangement to provide patient services while
and rehabilitation of those with identifiable emotional disorders.                            maximizing educational interchange. In both the teams, nurses
Mental health nursing focuses on well populations; it intervenes                              are accountable and responsible for the patient’s milieu and for
in crises and with high‑risk individuals or groups to prevent the                             implementing the nursing process, dealing with the daily activity
development of mental illness or disorder.[13]                                                of patients, and evaluating the outcome of nursing care.
Functions include:                                                                            The nurses play a vital role in psycho education and improves
1. C o l l e c t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d a t a t h a t h e l p i d e n t i f y          the psychological distress, pain and quality of life of anxiety
   problems (e.g., observing behavior, and recording observations.)                           disorder patients.[14]
2. Making inferences and/or judgments based on these data
                                                                                              Thus, nature of psychiatric nursing is conceptualized as an
   and leading to action (e.g., interpreting the behavior of the
                                                                                              interpersonal process that strives to promote and maintain
   patient and seeking to understand patients’ needs).
                                                                                              behavior that contributes to integrate functioning. The patient
3. Acting or intervening based on inferences (e.g., clarifying with
                                                                                              may be an individual, family, or community. Nurses would play
   a patient the meaning of a procedure, discussing and acting
                                                                                              an active role in team functioning through cooperation and
   to solve problems in work situations).
                                                                                              collaboration both in the hospital and community.
4. Evaluating the process based on whether identified problems
   have been solved (e.g., mutually evaluating experience and
   learning).                                                                                                          Conclusion
                                                                                              The findings of the present study indicate that potentially evident
The American nurses association has identified nine major                                     anxiety in anxiety prone patients can be managed by nurse‑led
activities involved in the practice of psychiatric nursing. They                              interventions. The results of this study suggest that NIP is
are as follows:                                                                               effective. Patients who received psychological interventions
1. Providing a therapeutic milieu.                                                            comprising of psychoeducation, and relaxation therapy have
2. Working with here and now problems of clients.                                             achieved a significant improvement, with reduced severity of
3. Using the surrogate–parent role.                                                           anxiety symptoms and improving the overall performance, faster
4. Caring for some somatic aspects of the client’s health                                     than the control group treated only with the routine care. These
    problem.                                                                                  improvements were clinically significant, as indicated by the
5. Teaching factors related to emotional health.                                              positive response. Importantly, these effects were maintained
6. Acting as a social agent.                                                                  and extended over a period of 6 months. This nurse‑led
7. Providing leadership to other personnel.                                                   intervention, increased perceived self‑efficacy in patients with
8. Conducting psychotherapy.                                                                  anxiety disorders, compared with control patients.
9. Engaging in social and community activities related to mental
    health.                                                                                   Projected outcome
                                                                                              The finding of this study also suggests that mental health nurses
Importance in the practice by primary care physicians                                         with appropriate education and supervision can provide an
The creation of a new primary care role for psychiatric nurses                                effective therapeutic approach to patients who are experiencing
developed in liaison with community health nurses brought in                                  anxiety in the mental health settings. The results of the study
a system of mutual referral and consultation. Primary are roles                               demonstrated the importance of improving patients’ awareness
involved assessment, direct patient care, and case management.                                on anxiety and how to access help when it occurs. The positive
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care                                            6712                                  Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022
                Mathew: Impact of nursing interventional package on anxiety and wellness level among anxiety disorders patients
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 6713 Volume 11 : Issue 11 : November 2022