Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33059673›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2020

Clinicians' experience of providing care: a rapid review.

Maha Pervaz Iqbal, Elizabeth Manias, Laurel Mimmo, Stephen Mears, Briony Jack, Liz Hay, Reema Harrison

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Exploring ChatGPT 3.5 for structured data extraction from oncological notes.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  6. 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.

Maha Pervaz IqbalSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, 2052, Australia. m.pervaziqbal@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4284-3383
Elizabeth ManiasSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Laurel MimmoSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, 2052, Australia.
Stephen MearsHunter New England Medical Library, New Lambton, NSW, 2350, Australia.
Briony JackStrategic Reform and Planning Branch, NSW Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia.
Liz HayEconomics and Analysis, Strategic Reform and Planning Branch, NSW Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia.
Reema HarrisonSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care services internationally are refocussing care delivery towards patient centred, integrated care that utilises effective, efficient and innovative models of care to optimise patient outcomes and system sustainability. Whilst significant efforts have been made to examine and enhance patient experience, to date little has progressed in relation to provider experience. This review aims to explore this knowledge gap by capturing evidence of clinician experience, and how this experience is defined and measured in the context of health system change and innovation.

methodsA rapid review of published and grey literature review was conducted utilising a rapid evidence assessment methodology. Seventy-nine studies retrieved from the literature were included in the review. Fourteen articles were identified from the grey literature search and one article obtained via hand searching. In total, 94 articles were included in the review. This study was commissioned by and co-designed with the New South Wales, Ministry of Health.

resultsClinician experience of delivering health care is inconsistently defined in the literature, with identified articles lacking clarity regarding distinctions between experience, engagement and work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction. Clinician experience was commonly explored using qualitative research that focused on experiences of discrete health care activities or events in which a change was occurring. Such research enabled exploration of complex experiences. In these contexts, clinician experience was captured in terms of self-reported information that clinicians provided about the health care activity or event, their perceptions of its value, the lived impacts they experienced, and the specific behaviours they displayed in relation to the activity or event. Moreover, clinician's experience has been identified to have a paucity of measurement tools.

conclusionLiterature to date has not examined clinician experience in a holistic sense. In order to achieve the goals identified in relation to value-based care, further work is needed to conceptualise clinician experience and understand the nature of measurement tools required to assess this. In health system application, a broader 'clinician pulse' style assessment may be valuable to understand the experience of clinical work on a continuum rather than in the context of episodes of change/care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansNew South WalesQualitative ResearchClinician experienceRapid evidence assessmentValue based Health care

Identifiers

PMID33059673
PMCPMC7559170

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.