Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33323151›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2020

Impact of workplace discrimination and harassment among National Health Service staff working in London trusts: results from the TIDES study.

Rebecca D Rhead, Zoe Chui, Ioannis Bakolis, Billy Gazard, Hannah Harwood, Shirlee MacCrimmon, Charlotte Woodhead, Stephani L Hatch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Beyond skin and accents: tackling nationality-based bias in health care and society.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Rebecca D RheadDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5863-604X
Zoe ChuiDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6844-6779
Ioannis BakolisCentre for Implementation Science, Health Services and Population Research Department and Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4800-1630
Billy GazardDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7562-5393
Hannah HarwoodDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1885-8481
Shirlee MacCrimmonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0503-8679
Charlotte WoodheadDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London; and ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5545-6238
Stephani L HatchDepartment of Psychological Medicine, King's College London; and ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9103-2427

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203380/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHarassment and discrimination in the National Health Service (NHS) has steadily increased over the past 5 years with London being the worst performing region. There is a lack of data and research on the impact this is having on staff health and job satisfaction. Such data are necessary to inform the development of effective workplace interventions to mitigate the effects these experiences have on staff.

aimsExamine the impact of harassment and discrimination on NHS staff working in London trusts, utilising data from the 2019 TIDES cross-sectional survey.

methodIn total, 931 London-based healthcare practitioners participated in the TIDES survey. Regression analysis was used to examine associations between the sociodemographic characteristics of participants, exposure to discrimination and harassment, and how such exposures are associated with physical and mental health, job satisfaction and sickness absence.

resultsWomen, Black ethnic minority staff, migrants, nurses and healthcare assistants were most at risk of discrimination and/or harassment. Experiencing either of the main exposures was associated with probable anxiety or depression. Experiencing harassment was also associated with moderate-to-severe somatic symptoms. Finally, both witnessing and experiencing the main exposures were associated with low job satisfaction and long periods of sickness absence.

conclusionsNHS staff, particularly those working in London trusts, are exposed to unprecedented levels of discrimination and harassment from their colleagues. Within the context of an already stretched and under-resourced NHS, in order to combat poor job satisfaction and high turnover rates, the value of all healthcare practitioners must be visibly and continuously reinforced by all management and senior leaders.

Indexed as

Discriminationharassmentheathcareinequalitiesmental health

Identifiers

PMID33323151
PMCPMC7791556

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.