ArticlePloS one2021
Work satisfaction among neuroradiology staff after receiving follow up reports of thrombectomy stroke patients.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeDuring a period of 6 months, we provided our entire neuroradiological staff including physicians, radiographers, and researchers with systematic feedback via email on the further clinical course of stroke patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. We analyzed the effects of this feedback on work satisfaction, work meaningfulness and valuation of the therapy among our staff.
methodsOur staff completed two self-reported questionnaires before and after the period of six months with systematic feedback.
resultsEmployees with higher work meaningfulness and higher work satisfaction valuated endovascular stroke therapy as more useful (p<0.001). A good clinical outcome was regarded more motivating than a good interventional outcome (p<0.001). Receiving systematic feedback did not increase work satisfaction (p = 0.318) or work meaningfulness (p = 0.178). Radiographers valuated the usefulness of interventional therapy the worst of all employees (p≤ 0.017). After the feedback period, 75% of radiographers estimated stroke as a more severe disease than before. Also, their desire for feedback decreased significantly (p = 0.007). Primarily patient cases with unfavorable outcomes were remembered by the staff.
conclusionsSystematic email feedback does not per se enhance work satisfaction or work meaningfulness among employees. However, receiving feedback is educative for the staff. Evaluating work satisfaction and the perception of treatment may help to identify unexpected issues and may therefore help to find specific measures that increase work satisfaction and motivation.
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.