Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31226986›Full record

ReviewBMC medical education2019

Interventions addressing student bullying in the clinical workplace: a narrative review.

Althea Gamble Blakey, Kelby Smith-Han, Lynley Anderson, Emma Collins, Elizabeth Berryman, Tim J Wilkinson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Althea Gamble BlakeyOtago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ, New Zealand. Althea.Blakey@otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8373-5816
Kelby Smith-HanOtago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ, New Zealand.
Lynley AndersonBioethics Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ, New Zealand.
Emma CollinsOtago Polytechnic & Staff Nurse, Southern District Health Board, Dunedin, NZ, New Zealand.
Elizabeth BerrymanNorth Shore Hospital, Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, NZ, New Zealand.
Tim J WilkinsonOtago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Occupational HealthStudents, MedicalBullyingDatabases, FactualHumansProgram EvaluationBullyingClinical environmentInterventionMedical studentNursing student

Identifiers

PMID31226986
PMCPMC6588850

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.