25^th World Nursing and Nurse Practitioner Conference October 22-23, 2018 Osaka, Japan

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and June 2018, his ten research teams published approximately100 posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

Patient Education: Evaluation of the Affective Domain Questionnaire to Assess Changes In Learning Across Three Timed Measurements\r\n\r\nDale Hilty, PhD ~ Jody Gill-Rocha, MS, RN ~ Kathryn Ross, MSN, RN ~ Anne Hinze, MA, MS ~ Kali Clark, BSN Candidate \r\n \r\nAbstract \r\nThe purpose of this educational intervention was to determine if the Affective Doman Questionnaire (ADQ-SE) would assess changes in learning across three timed measurements. Instrumentation: Competitive Greatness scale (Hilty, 2017) is defined as being the best you can be, continuous self-improvement, appreciating difficult challenges. ADQ-SE measures Krathwohl et al.\'s affective taxonomy model. \r\n\r\nThe purpose was to create a patient education for senior level students (N=37) in a Bachelor of Science Nursing (BSN) program based on faculty lectures, faculty laboratory demonstration, and student demonstration of skill in a simulation laboratory. Prior to the skill demonstration in the simulation laboratory, students selected one of the eight topics and submitted a term paper summarizing the topic and created a communication script describing how the information would be presented to the patient.\r\n\r\nTimed Measurements\r\n1st Assessment: Pre-test\r\nIntervention 1: Faculty lectures, faculty laboratory demonstration, assignment of small group research paper and communication script.\r\n2nd Assessment: \r\nIntervention 2: Students assumed the role of a Registered Nurse in a simulation including the patient and family members. Faculty members spoke via a microphone as the voice for patient.\r\n3rd Assessment:\r\n \r\n\r\nHypothesis 1: The Affective Doman Questionnaire (ADQ) was used to examine affective changes during the three timed-measurements. Using SPSS 25, a repeated measures ANOVA on these data produced a significant result (F(2,36) = 111.805, p=.001) for ADQ common factor 1. Hypothesis 2: On the ADQ common factor 2, a significant result (F(2,36) = 103.845, p=.001) was found using ANOVA repeated measures. Hypothesis 3: An ANOVA repeated measures test found a significant result (F(2,36) = 49.846, p=.001) on ADQ common factor 3. For all three ADQ common factors, the data in the Pair-Wise Comparison tables revealed significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2 (p=.001), Time 1 and Time 3 (p=.001), and Time 2 and Time 3 (p=.001). \r\n\r\nPublications \r\n\r\n• Hilty, D., Hinze, A., & Clark, K. (2018). Preliminary examination of the positive impact of affect on learning for nursing students. Podium presentation at 14th World Congress on Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, Vancouver, Canada.\r\n• Hilty, D., Gill-Rocha, J., Ross, K, Hinze, A., & Clark, C. (2018b). Preliminary Investigation of the Affective Domain Questionnaire based on Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia\'s (1964) Taxonomy.\r\n• Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II: Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.\r\n \r\n\r\n

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and June 2018, his ten research teams published approximately100 posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

Patient Education: Evaluation of the Patient Education Questionnaire to Assess Changes In Learning Across Three Timed Measurements\r\n\r\nDale Hilty, PhD ~ Jody Gill-Rocha, MS, RN ~ Kathryn Ross, MSN, RN ~ Hope Schmidt, BSN, RN ~ Rae Ann Smith, MSN, CNP ~ Kristin Partee, MS, RN ~ Tina Harkless, MSN, RN, CCRN \r\n \r\nAbstract \r\nThe aim of this educational intervention was to determine if the Patient Education Questionnaire (PAQ) would assess changes in learning across three timed measurements. Instrumentation: Competitive Greatness scale (Hilty, 2017) is defined as being the best you can be, continuous self-improvement, appreciating difficult challenges. PEQ measurements are provided by the Patient Education Difficulty, Patient Education Satisfaction, and Patient Education Apathy-Borden common factors. \r\n\r\nThe purpose was to create a patient education for senior level students (N=37) in a Bachelor of Science Nursing (BSN) program based on faculty lectures, faculty laboratory demonstration, and student demonstration of skill in a simulation laboratory. Prior to the skill demonstration in the simulation laboratory, students selected one of the eight topics and submitted a term paper summarizing the topic and created a communication script describing how the information would be presented to the patient.\r\n\r\nTimed Measurements\r\n1st Assessment: Pre-test\r\nIntervention 1: Faculty lectures, faculty laboratory demonstration, assignment of small group research paper and communication script.\r\n2nd Assessment: \r\nIntervention 2: Students assumed the role of a Registered Nurse in a simulation including the patient and family members. Faculty members spoke via a microphone as the voice for patient.\r\n3rd Assessment:\r\n\r\nHypothesis 1: The Patient Education Questionnaire (PEQ) was used to examine changes during the three timed-measurements. Using SPSS 25, a repeated measures ANOVA on these data produced a significant result (F(2,34) = 9.836, p=.001) for PEQ-Difficulty common factor. The data in the Pair-Wise Comparison tables revealed significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2 (p=.001), and Time 1 and Time 3 (p=.001). Hypothesis 2: On the PEQ-Satisfaction common factor, a significant result (F(2,34) = 4.623, p=.001) was found using ANOVA repeated measures. The data in the Pair-Wise Comparison tables revealed significant differences between Time 1 and Time 3 (p=.007).\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nHypothesis 3: An ANOVA repeated measures test found a significant result (F(2,34) = 7.613, p=.001) on the PEQ-Apathy & Boredom common factor. The data in the Pair-Wise Comparison tables revealed significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2 (p=.024) and Time 1 and Time 3 (p=.001). Hypothesis 4: An ANOVA repeated measures test found a significant result (F(2,34) = 11.603, p=.001) on the Competitive Greatness scale. The data in the Pair-Wise Comparison tables revealed significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2 (p=.001) and Time 1 and Time 3 (p=.001). \r\nPublications \r\n\r\nBastable, S. (2014). Nurse as educator. Principles of teaching and learning for nursing practice (4th Edition). Burlington, MA: Jones & Barlett Learning.\r\n \r\nBastable, S. (2017). Essentials of patient education (2nd Edition). Burlington, MA: Jones & Barlett Learning.\r\n \r\nHilty, D. (2017, October). Preliminary investigation (phase 1) evaluating relationship among Big Five personality factors, team spirit, and Wooden’s competitive greatness construct. Poster Presentation at Lilly Conference at Traverse City, Michigan. \r\n \r\nJoint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. (2001). Patient and family education: The compliance guide to the JCAHO standards (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003169433\r\n \r\nMcLain, K., Hilty, D., Harkless, T. Partee, K., Smith, R. & Schmidt, H. (2018, February). Development of patient education questionnaire for nursing students. Poster Presentation at Lilly Conference at Anaheim, California. \r\n \r\nMusinski, B. (1999). The educator as facilitator: A new kind of leadership. Nursing Forum, 34(1), 23-29.\r\n \r\nSpector, R. (2017) Cultural diversity in health and illness (9th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson. \r\n

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and June 2018, his ten research teams published approximately100 posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

Preliminary Investigation of Continuous Self-Improvement, Conflict Handling Styles, & Class Standing\r\n\r\nDale Hilty, PhD \r\nAbstract \r\nThe purpose of this educational intervention was to explore the relationship between competitive greatness (i.e., (i.e., being the best you can be, continuous self-improvement, appreciating difficult challenges) and conflict handling styles. Participants in this intervention were Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students with three different class standing levels: 1st year (N=56), 2nd year (N=78), and SDAP accelerated (N=53). Instrumentation: Competitive Greatness scale (Hilty, 2017) and interpersonal conflict handling styles questionnaire (ICHS; Leung & Kim, 2007).\r\n\r\nHypothesis 1\r\nUsing SPSS 25, one-way ANOVA analyses did not find significant differences among BSN undergraduate students based on their student class standing (i.e., 1st year, 2nd year, SDAP) on the Ingratiating, Deceiving, Coercing, Dominating, Obliging, and Avoiding/Smoothing conflict handing scales. Significant differences were found on the Compromising Interpersonal scale (F(2, 184) = 5.720, p=.004) and the Integrating Interpersonal scale (F(2, 184) = 5.265, p=.006). \r\n\r\nHypothesis 2\r\nUsing SPSS 25, the correlational analyses found coefficient sizes between .0 and .2 for a coefficient general interpretation (Salkind, 2017) of weak/no relationship among the Competitive Greatness scale (i.e., being the best you can be when your best is needed, continuous self-improvement, accepting difficult challenges) and the conflict handing scales (CG - Ingratiating, .009; Deceiving, -.123; Coercing, -.156*, p=.033; Dominating, -.123; Compromising, .187*, p=.01; Integrating, .177*, p=.016; Obliging, -.056; Avoiding/Smoothing, -.165*, p=.024; * = significant 2-tailed test).\r\n\r\nHypothesis 3\r\nUsing SPSS 25 regression analysis, the ANOVA table reported a significant effect (F =5.165, p=.001). The overall regression was significant (r = .456, r-squared = .208). Competitive Greatness was the dependent variable, and the interpersonal conflict handling scales were the predictor variables.\r\n\r\nConclusions\r\nThe statistical findings of this educational intervention found qualified support for the three hypotheses . The three variables were class standing, competitive greatness, and conflict handling style. \r\n \r\n\r\nPublications \r\n\r\n• Leung, T. & Kim, M. (2007). Eight conflict handling styles: Validation of model and instrument. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 17:(2),173–198.\r\n• Hilty, D. (2017, October). Preliminary investigation (phase 1) evaluating relationship among Big Five personality factors, team spirit, and Wooden’s competitive greatness construct. Poster Presentation at Lilly Conference at Traverse City, Michigan.\r\n• Salkind, N. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (6th edition). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc. \r\n \r\n

Gina Lladó Jordan has completed his PhD at the age of 27 years in Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain. She works as an investigator and teacher in Universidad Isabel I, Burgos, Spain. She has completed 5 masters related to various aspects of health sciences. She has directed 20 Final Degree Projects and participated in multiple studies and research groups. Her main line of research is Eating Disorders and Nutrition

Introduction: Diabetes Mellitus type 2 is one of the most prevalent pathologies. The professionals are focused on the importance of weight control, modifying lifestyles and performing pharmacological treatment to achieve good metabolic control. However, there is no clear literature explaining whether diet modifies the action of hypoglycemic drugs.\r\n\r\nObjective: To determine, reviewing studies conducted by other authors, the interactions between hypoglycemic drugs and food.\r\n\r\nMethods: A review in PubMed was performed with the terms Diabetes mellitus type 2, Oral antidiabetics, Hypoglycemic drugs, Drug-food interaction, Feeding, Food interaction. Articles published in the last 9 years were used. \r\n\r\nResults: The most important results are: There are multiple ways in which diet modifies the therapeutic effect of antidiabetic treatments. The most important are the modifications (inhibition) of the P450 enzyme complex (specifically CYP3A4), which increases the therapeutic action of many oral hypoglycemic agents (inhibitors of DPP 4, sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors). The therapeutic action is also reduced by the decrease in absorption, when is combined with food with fiber.\r\n\r\nConclusions: The main considerations on the pharmacodynamics of antidiabetic treatments are absorption, protein binding and metabolism. Food and its components can interact with antidiabetic drugs, modifying their pharmacological characteristics and, consequently, their final effect, increasing or decreasing their potency. Food and their specific components can interact by different routes with drugs and modify their absorption, their metabolism or their elimination. Finally, drug-food interaction studies are scarce and it is important to carry out more experimental studies in order to be able to define precise indications in the area of pharmacology and nutrition.\r\n \r\nRecent Publications \r\n1. American Diabetes Association (2018). Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. Diabetes Care.\r\n2. Anderson JW, Randles KM, Kendall CW, Jenkins DJ (2014). Carbohydrate and fiber recommendations for individuals with diabetes: a quantitative assessment and meta-analysis of the evidence. J Am Coll Nutr; 23(1):5-17.\r\n3. Choi H, Chang M (2017). Food and Drug Interactions JLM Vol. 7, No. 1.\r\n4. Eriksson L, Nyström T (2015). Antidiabetic agents and endothelial dysfunction - beyond glucose control. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol, 117(1): 15-25.\r\n5. Garber AJ, King AB, Del Prato S (2012). Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. The Lancet; 379:1498–1507.\r\n6. Holstein A, Beil W (2009). Oral antidiabetic drug metabolism: pharmacogenomics and drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol, 5, 225–241\r\n7. Kitagawa S (2016). Inhibitory effects of polyphenols on p-glycoprotein- mediated transport. Biol Pharm Bull, 29: 1-6\r\n8. Peron EP, Ogbonna KC, Donohoe KL (2015). Antidiabetic medications and polypharmacy. Clin Geriatr Med; 31(1): 17-27, VII\r\n9. Zoofishan Z, Hohmann J, Hunyadi A (2018). Phenolic antioxidants of Morus nigra roots, and antitumor potential of morusin Phytochemistry Reviews, 28.\r\n\r\n