Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262666›Full record

ReviewBritish medical bulletin2022

'The WOW factors': comparing workforce organization and well-being for doctors, nurses, midwives and paramedics in England.

Cath Taylor, Karen Mattick, Daniele Carrieri, Anna Cox, Jill Maben

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British medical bulletin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  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
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cath TaylorSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YH, UK.
Karen MattickCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Daniele CarrieriCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Anna CoxSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YH, UK.
Jill MabenSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YH, UK.
University of Surrey · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research NIHR129528
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh rates of poor mental health in healthcare staff threatens the quality and sustainability of healthcare delivery. Multi-factorial causes include the nature and structure of work. We conducted a critical review of UK NHS (England) data pertaining to: doctors, nurses, midwives and paramedics. SOURCES OF DATA: Key demographic, service architecture (structural features of work) and well-being indicators were identified and reviewed by a stakeholder group. Data searching prioritized NHS whole workforce sources (focusing on hospital and community health services staff), which were rated according to strength of evidence.

findingsKey differences between professions were: (i) demographics: gender (nursing and midwifery female-dominated, doctors and paramedics more balanced); age (professions other than doctors had ageing workforces); ethnicity (greater diversity among doctors and nurses); (ii) service architecture: despite net staffing growth, turnover and retention were problematic in all professions; 41.5% doctors were consultants but smaller proportions held high grade/band roles in other professions; salaries were higher for doctors; (iii) well-being: all reported high job stress, particularly midwives and paramedics; sickness absence rates for nurses, midwives and paramedics were three times those of doctors, and presenteeism nearly double. GROWING POINTS: Sociocultural factors known to increase risk of poor mental health may explain some of the differences reported between professions. These factors and differences in service architecture are vital considerations when designing strategies to improve well-being. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Multi-level systems approaches to well-being are required that consider intersectionality and structural differences between professions; together with inter-professional national databases to facilitate monitoring.

Indexed as

MidwiferyAllied Health PersonnelEnglandFemaleHumansPersonnel TurnoverPregnancyWorkforcehealthcare professionalsmental healthworkforce organization

Identifiers

PMID35262666
PMCPMC8935611
OpenAlexW4210810646

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.