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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Integration of Care Assistants Into Intensive Care Nursing Teams: A Multimethod Study.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of the nurse practice environment, workload, and professional support on job outcomes and standards of care at primary health care clinics in South Africa: A structural equation model approach.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Article
- Nursing Practice Environments in Hospitals: A Comparative Study between Portugal and Brazil.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Systematic RADaR analysis of responses to the open-ended question in the Culture of Care Barometer survey of a Dutch hospital.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Measuring the work environment among healthcare professionals: Validation of the Dutch version of the Culture of Care Barometer.PloS one · 2024Article
- Measuring in-hospital quality multidimensionally by integrating patients', kin's and healthcare professionals' perspectives: development and validation of the FlaQuM-Quickscan.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- The Nurse Perceived Adequacy of Staffing Scale for general hospital wards: A development and psychometric validation study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2023Article
- Nurse Leadership Development: A Qualitative Study of the Dutch Excellent Care Program.Journal of nursing management · 2023Article
- Further psychometric evaluation of the Structured Multidisciplinary Work Evaluation Tool (SMET) questionnaire: Practical implications in healthcare settings.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.