Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32648902›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2020

Psychometric evaluation of instruments measuring the work environment of healthcare professionals in hospitals: a systematic literature review.

Susanne M Maassen, Anne Marie J W Weggelaar Jansen, Gerard Brekelmans, Hester Vermeulen, Catharina J van Oostveen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Susanne M MaassenDepartment of Quality & Patient Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anne Marie J W Weggelaar JansenDepartment of Health Services Management & Organization, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50 (Bayle Building) Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerard BrekelmansDepartment of Quality & Patient Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hester VermeulenDepartement of IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21 (route 114) Postbus 9101, 6500 HB, NIjmegen, The Netherlands.
Catharina J van OostveenDepartment of Health Services Management & Organization, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50 (Bayle Building) Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeResearch shows that the professional healthcare working environment influences the quality of care, safety climate, productivity, and motivation, happiness, and health of staff. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to assess instruments that provide valid, reliable and succinct measures of health care professionals' work environment (WE) in hospitals. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL EBSCOhost and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through December 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Pre-defined eligibility criteria (written in English, original work-environment instrument for healthcare professionals and not a translation, describing psychometric properties as construct validity and reliability) were used to detect studies describing instruments developed to measure the working environment. DATA EXTRACTION: After screening 6397 titles and abstracts, we included 37 papers. Two reviewers independently assessed the 37 instruments on content and psychometric quality following the COSMIN guideline. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Our paper analysis revealed a diversity of items measured. The items were mapped into 48 elements on aspects of the healthcare professional's WE. Quality assessment also revealed a wide range of methodological flaws in all studies.

conclusionsWe found a large variety of instruments that measure the professional healthcare environment. Analysis uncovered content diversity and diverse methodological flaws in available instruments. Two succinct, interprofessional instruments scored best on psychometrical quality and are promising for the measurement of the working environment in hospitals. However, further psychometric validation and an evaluation of their content is recommended.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultshospitalinstrumentsorganizational culturepsychometric propertiessystematic reviewwork environment

Identifiers

PMID32648902
PMCPMC7654380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.