ReviewBMC medical education2019
Interventions addressing student bullying in the clinical workplace: a narrative review.
Review in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Drivers of unprofessional behaviour between staff in acute care hospitals: a realist review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review of academic bullying in medical settings: dynamics and consequences.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Validating a Multidimensional Perspective of the Relationship Between Workplace Bullying, Professional Quality of Life, and Turnover Intention of Chinese Novice Nurses.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Prevent and report: a qualitative inquiry of student and faculty recommendations for preventing and reporting learner mistreatment.Medical education online · 2024Article
- PlayDecide teamwork: a discussion game for junior doctors to explore workplace bullying and harassment.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- A Rapid Review on Complaint Mechanisms for Interpersonal Violence: Integrating Research-Based Recommendations from Multiple Sectors to Inform Sport Settings.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2024Review
- Factors Affecting Nursing Students' Perception of Workplace Bullying.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Supporting Bystanders and Other Staff Exposed to Negative Workplace Behaviour: Developing and Testing the IMO Intervention Framework in the Clinical Workplace.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
- Evaluation and improvement of workplace vertical violence of nursing interns based on the Importance-Performance Analysis method.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Bullying in the clinical setting: Lived experiences of nursing students in the Central Region of Ghana.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Response to "A Personal Perspective: Is Bullying Still a Problem in Medicine?" - A Medical Student Perspective [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- Is There Still Bullying in Medicine at All Levels - Undergraduate and Postgraduate? [Response to Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- The State of Academic Bullying Among Medical Students in Tanzania: Prevalence, Forms and Associated Factors. A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudent bullying in the clinical environment continues to have a substantial impact, despite numerous attempts to rectify the situation. However, there are significant gaps in the literature about interventions to help students, particularly a lack of specific guidance around which to formulate an intervention program likely to be effective. With this narrative review about student bullying interventions in the clinical learning environment, we examine and draw together the available, but patchy, information about 'what works' to inform better practice and further research.
methodsWe initially followed a PICO approach to obtain and analyse data from 38 articles from seven databases. We then used a general inductive approach to form themes about effective student bullying intervention practice, and potential unintended consequences of some of these, which we further developed into six final themes.
resultsThe diverse literature presents difficulties in comparison of intervention efficacy and substantive guidance is sparse and inconsistently reported. The final analytical approach we employed was challenging but useful because it enabled us to reveal the more effective elements of bullying interventions, as well as information about what to avoid: an interventionist and institution need to, together, 1. understand bullying catalysts, 2. address staff needs, 3. have, but not rely on policy or reporting process about behaviour, 4. avoid targeting specific staff groups, but aim for saturation, 5. frame the intervention to encourage good behaviour, not target poor behaviour, and 6. possess specific knowledge and specialised teaching and facilitation skills. We present the themed evidence pragmatically to help practitioners and institutions design an effective program and avoid instigating practices which have now been found to be ineffective or deleterious.
conclusionsDespite challenges with the complexity of the literature and in determining a useful approach for analysis and reporting, results are important and ideas about practice useful. These inform a way forward for further, more effective student bullying intervention and research: an active learning approach addressing staff needs, which is non-targeted and positively and skilfully administered. (331w).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.