Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29420234›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

'Care Under Pressure': a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care.

Daniele Carrieri, Simon Briscoe, Mark Jackson, Karen Mattick, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Mark Pearson, Geoffrey Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. UK general practice service delivery research priorities: an adapted James Lind Alliance approach.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniele CarrieriUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3143-8430
Simon BriscoeExeter HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Mark JacksonWellcome Centre for Cultures and Enviroments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Karen MattickUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark PearsonWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Geoffrey WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 16/53/12Department of Health HS&DR/16/53/12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMental ill-health is prevalent across all groups of health professionals and this is of great concern in many countries. In the UK, the mental health of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce is a major healthcare issue, leading to presenteeism, absenteeism and loss of staff from the workforce. Most interventions targeting doctors aim to increase their 'productivity' and 'resilience', placing responsibility for good mental health with doctors themselves and neglecting the organisational and structural contexts that may have a detrimental effect on doctors' well-being. There is a need for approaches that are sensitive to the contextual complexities of mental ill-health in doctors, and that do not treat doctors as a uniform body, but allow distinctions to account for particular characteristics, such as specialty, career stage and different working environments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our project aims to understand how, why and in what contexts support interventions can be designed to minimise the incidence of doctors' mental ill-health. We will conduct a realist review-a form of theory-driven interpretative systematic review-of interventions, drawing on diverse literature sources. The review will iteratively progress through five steps: (1) locate existing theories; (2) search for evidence; (3) select articles; (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. The analysis will summarise how, why and in what circumstances doctors' mental ill-health is likely to develop and what can remediate the situation. Throughout the project, we will also engage iteratively with diverse stakeholders in order to produce actionable theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for our review. Our dissemination strategy will be participatory. Tailored outputs will be targeted to: policy makers; NHS employers and healthcare leaders; team leaders; support organisations; doctors experiencing mental ill-health, their families and colleagues. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069870.

Indexed as

Medical StaffMental DisordersMental HealthPhysician ImpairmentPhysiciansDelivery of Health CareHumansOrganizational CulturePersons with Psychiatric DisordersRisk FactorsState MedicineSystematic Reviews as TopicUnited KingdomWorkloadhealth policy

Identifiers

PMID29420234
PMCPMC5829880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.