Marie Fletcher P, Paige Owen C, Djukic M. A
Narrative Review of Strategies and Interventions to Mitigate Microaggressions
as a Form of Workplace Violence. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2025 Apr
21:10783903251333380. doi: 10.1177/10783903251333380. Epub ahead of print.
PMID: 40256998.
1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the article recommendations on your unit and/or hospital?
ReplyDeleteThe evidence based literature review revealed several strategies to address microaggressions. Common steps include: pause when the microaggression occurs, build skills to feel comfortable addressing the transgression in real time, and allow time to debrief and reflect after the encounter. Microinterventions also give instruction on how to go from bystander to upstander.
2) Describe the method used by the author in the study
The method was an evidence-based literature review of published articles from 2010-2024 where 17 total articles were included in the review. Seven articles reported on communication strategies and eight on interventions. Four articles highlighted microinterventions as a strategy to address microaggressions.
2) What are the advantages and disadvantages to the proposed recommendations in the article?
ReplyDeleteThe proposed recommendations by Fletcher and colleagues (2025) offer several advantages. They promote a more inclusive and respectful workplace by actively addressing microaggressions, which supports psychological safety among staff and can help reduce burnout and improve retention. Additionally, these strategies encourage better teamwork and communication, ultimately benefiting patient care. The recommendations include structured approaches such as education, policy updates, and leadership modeling that can be adapted to various healthcare settings. However, there are also some disadvantages to consider. Implementing these interventions may require significant time and resources for staff training and policy development. Some staff members might resist the changes, perceiving them as unnecessary or overly sensitive. Furthermore, without strong leadership engagement and consistent enforcement, the impact of these interventions may be limited (Fletcher et al., 2025).
3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the article recommendations on your unit and/or hospital?
Implementing the article’s recommendations in the neuro-telemetry unit could offer important benefits, as this setting relies heavily on teamwork and collaboration among a diverse group of healthcare professionals. By adopting targeted strategies to recognize and address microaggressions, staff can create a more psychologically safe and inclusive environment, essential for effective communication and coordination in such a complex clinical area (Fletcher et al., 2025). These approaches would empower staff with practical tools to intervene when microaggressions occur, helping to prevent conflicts and strengthen team cohesion. However, challenges exist, including the need for significant time, effort, and leadership commitment to provide comprehensive training and integrate these strategies into daily practice. To ensure that these efforts move beyond policy to influence behavior and improve the workplace culture, sustaining meaningful change will require ongoing reinforcement (Fletcher et al., 2025).
5. Was the correct method used? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteYes, the narrative review method made sense for this topic. Since microaggressions are a broad, complex issue without a lot of standardized interventions, a review of the existing strategies was the best way to pull together what’s out there. Instead of testing one intervention, the authors looked across multiple studies and reports to summarize common themes and gaps. That gives readers a big-picture view, but it also means the findings are more descriptive than definitive.
6. Discuss the sample size used in the study
Because this was a narrative review, there wasn’t a traditional “sample size” like you’d see in a randomized trial. Instead, the “sample” was the body of published studies the authors selected. That approach works for a review, but it does come with limits — the conclusions depend heavily on which studies were included and the quality of those studies. So while it gives useful insights, we can’t treat it the same way as data collected directly from a large, controlled group.
1. Discuss the Sample Size Used in the Study
ReplyDeleteIn a narrative review such as this one, there is no traditional "sample size"—rather, the focus is on the number of studies that the authors included and synthesized. The authors initially identified 102 articles, which were screened according to inclusion criteria; following deduplication and eligibility checks, 17 articles were ultimately included in the review. Of these 17, eight studies featured interventions, and seven of those used a descriptive pre/post-test design. The “sample size” is essentially 17 publications, rather than individuals or cohorts. This small number reflects the limited existing literature on interventions specifically addressing microaggressions in healthcare, particularly in nursing contexts.
2. Discuss the Limitations of the Article
The Limited Sample Size (Number of Studies), only 17 studies included, and just eight involving interventions, the review’s scope is narrow — limiting the breadth and robustness of conclusions. This underlines a scarcity of rigorous, tested strategies for mitigating microaggressions in nursing and healthcare settings. The review addresses a critical issue—microaggressions as workplace violence—but it's constrained by the limited and methodologically varied literature available.
1. Describe the method used by the author in the study
ReplyDeleteThe authors conducted a narrative literature review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for structure and transparency. They searched databases, including Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and PubMed, for articles published between 2010 and 2024 that addressed strategies or interventions to reduce microaggressions involving health professions students, educators, healthcare workers, or first responders. From an initial 102 articles, 17 met inclusion criteria after deduplication and eligibility screening
2.What are the advantages and disadvantages to the proposed recommendations in the article?
The article's recommendations are strengthened by the use of PRISMA guidelines and a broad database search, which add transparency and ensure relevant studies are included. Focusing on healthcare professionals and categorizing strategies into communication, interventions, and micro-interventions makes the findings practical and easy to apply.
However, limitations include the small number of intervention studies, most of which used weak designs and none of which focused on nurses. The actual effectiveness of the strategies in reducing microaggressions remains unclear, and the narrative review format may introduce bias due to a lack of systematic evaluation.
3) What are the advantages and disadvantages to the proposed recommendations in the article?
ReplyDeleteSome advantages are raise awareness of microaggressions through education and training, provide support systems for those affected (mentorship, peer support), encourage institutional change with policies and leadership involvement, empower bystanders to safely intervene, and help prevent long-term harms like burnout and turnover. Disadvantages of the recommendations are require time, funding, and staff commitment to implement, hard to sustain over time without strong accountability, may face resistance or defensiveness from staff, limited evidence on which strategies work best and risk of “check-the-box” efforts without deeper cultural change
4) Describe the method used by the author in this study?
Fletcher, Owen, and Djukic (2025) used a narrative review method, examining existing literature on strategies to address microaggressions in the workplace. Rather than collecting new data, they summarized and highlighted common interventions such as education, policy changes, leadership involvement, and support systems. The goal was to provide a broad overview of approaches to reduce microaggressions as a form of workplace violence.
1. Describe the method used by the author in the study
ReplyDelete- The authors conducted an evidence-based narrative literature review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searching four databases-Web of Science, Emboss, CINAHL, and PubMed-for articles published between 2010-2024 that discussed strategies or interventions to reduce micro aggressions among health professionals, students, educators, or first responders. After screening 102 articles for eligibility, they included 17 studies that met their criteria. The selected studies were then analyzed and summarized got identify common strategies, interventions, and themes that could be applied to nursing practice.
2. Discuss the sample size used in the study
- Being that this was a narrative review, the study did not have traditional participant sample size. Instead, the sample refers to the body of research articles included. Out of 102 articles screened, 17 studies published between 2010-2024 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The sample size reflects the number of studies reviewed rather than individual participants, and one limitation is that none included studies directly involving nurses.
5) Was the correct method used? why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThe method used was the narrative method and this method was appropriate and correct. The goal of the article was to analyze different methods of strategies to mitigate microagressions in workplace violence. Using this method allowed the researchers to both summarize and synthesize their research findings thoroughly. This method also allowed the researchers to have a diverse array of selection when it came to article selection.
6)Discuss the sample size used in the study
Instead of using participants, the researchers of this article screened a total of 102 articles to be included in the article and ended up choosing17 studies. This selection of studies allowed the researchers to carefully read up on perspectives and strategies for their own synthesis and analysis. A limitation of this sample size is that it can be viewed as a small sample size and can thus be viewed as a less than comprehensive review/study.
1. Describe the method used by the author in the study.
ReplyDeleteThe authors employed an evidence-based narrative literature review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across four databases: Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and PubMed, using targeted keywords and Boolean operators related to microaggressions, educational interventions, and training strategies. The inclusion criteria encompassed articles published between 2010 and 2024 that examined strategies or interventions addressing microaggressions and involved healthcare students, educators, professionals, or first responders. Duplicates and non-English publications were excluded. Following the screening of 102 articles for relevance and eligibility, 17 studies were selected, and pertinent data regarding strategies and interventions for mitigating microaggressions in nursing practice were extracted.
2. Discuss the sample size used in the study.
In the conducted narrative review, the authors initially assessed 102 articles for eligibility. Following the application of deduplication procedures and inclusion criteria, 17 articles published between 2010 and 2024 were ultimately incorporated into the review. The sample sizes within these studies varied considerably, ranging from 25 participants in a descriptive case report to 163 participants in a workshop involving preclinical medical and dental students. Notably, none of the studies included nurses as participants, which constrains the direct generalizability of the findings to nursing populations.