Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35531649›Full record

ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2022

The perceived work environment and well-being: A survey of emergency health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Janice Blanchard, Yixuan Li, Suzanne K Bentley, Michelle D Lall, Anne M Messman, Yiju Teresa Liu, Deborah B Diercks, Rory Merritt-Recchia, Randy Sorge, Jordan M Warchol and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Care Aides Compassion Fatigue, Burnout, and Compassion Satisfaction Related to Long-Term Care (LTC) Working Environment.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. National Evaluation of Emergency Medical Services Clinician Burnout and Workforce-Reducing Factors.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. 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

14 authors.

Janice BlanchardDepartment of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7230-2583
Yixuan LiDepartment of Health Policy, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Suzanne K BentleyDepartments of Emergency Medicine & Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City Health+Hospitals/Elmhurst, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0192-3133
Michelle D LallDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5622-1705
Anne M MessmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, University Health Center-6G, Detroit, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7030-331X
Yiju Teresa LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA.
Deborah B DiercksDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Rory Merritt-RecchiaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Randy SorgeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Louisiana State University Spirit of Charity Emergency Medicine Residency Program, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Jordan M WarcholDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Christopher GreeneDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
James GriffithDepartment of Psychiatry, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Rita A ManfrediDepartment of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Melissa McCarthyDepartments of Health Policy and Emergency Medicine, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, health care provider well-being was affected by various challenges in the work environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the perceived work environment and mental well-being of a sample of emergency physicians (EPs), emergency medicine (EM) nurses, and emergency medical services (EMS) providers during the pandemic.

methodsWe surveyed attending EPs, resident EPs, EM nurses, and EMS providers from 10 academic sites across the United States. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to estimate the effect of the perceived work environment on screening positive for depression/anxiety and burnout controlling for respondent characteristics. We tested possible predictors in the multivariate regression models and included the predictors that were significant in the final model.

resultsOur final sample included 701 emergency health care workers. Almost 23% of respondents screened positive for depression/anxiety and 39.7% for burnout. Nurses were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression/anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.86) and burnout (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.22-3.49) compared to attendings. The LCA analysis identified four subgroups of our respondents that differed in their responses to the work environment questions. These groups were identified as Work Environment Risk Group 1, an overall good work environment; Risk Group 2, inadequate resources; Risk Group 3, lack of perceived organizational support; and Risk Group 4, an overall poor work environment. Participants in the two groups who perceived their work conditions as most adverse were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression/anxiety (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05-3.42; and aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.14-3.66) compared to participants working in environments perceived as less adverse.

conclusionsWe found a strong association between a perceived adverse working environment and poor mental health, particularly when organizational support was deemed inadequate. Targeted strategies to promote better perceptions of the workplace are needed.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalCOVID-19DepressionHealth PersonnelHumansPandemicsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID35531649
PMCPMC9347760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.