Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641015›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Returning to clinical work and doctors' personal, social and organisational needs: a systematic review.

Chris Attoe, Raluca Matei, Laura Thompson, Kevin Teoh, Sean Cross, Tom Cox

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors.

Chris AttoeMaudsley Learning, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK chris.attoe@slam.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5559-2697
Raluca MateiCentre for Sustainable Working Life, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.
Laura ThompsonCentre for Sustainable Working Life, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.
Kevin TeohDepartment of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6490-8208
Sean CrossMaudsley Learning, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Tom CoxCentre for Sustainable Working Life, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesise existing evidence on doctors' personal, social and organisational needs when returning to clinical work after an absence.

designSystematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO and PubMed were searched up to 4 June 2020. Non-database searches included references and citations of identified articles and pages 1-10 of Google and Google Scholar. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies presented quantitative or qualitative data collected from doctors returning to work, with findings relating to personal, social or organisational needs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using a piloted template. Risk of bias assessment used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument or Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist. Data were not suitable for meta-analyses and underwent narrative synthesis due to varied study designs and mixed methods.

resultsTwenty-four included studies (14 quantitative, 10 qualitative) presented data from 92 692 doctors in the UK (n=13), US (n=4), Norway (n=3), Japan (n=2), Spain (n=1), Canada (n=1). All studies identified personal needs, categorised as work-life balance, emotional regulation, self-perception and identity, and engagement with return process. Seventeen studies highlighted social needs relating to professional culture, personal and professional relationships, and illness stigma. Organisational needs found in 22 studies were flexibility and job control, work design, Occupational Health services and organisational culture. Emerging resources and recommendations were highlighted. Variable quality and high risk of biases in data collection and analysis suggest cautious interpretation.

conclusionsThis review posits a foundational framework of returning doctors' needs, requiring further developed through methodologically robust studies that assess the impact of length and reason for absence, before developing and evaluating tailored interventions. Organisations, training programmes and professional bodies should refine support for returning doctors based on evidence.

Indexed as

PhysiciansCanadaHumansJapanOrganizational CultureOrganizationsEducation & training (see Medical Education & Training)Health policyHuman resource managementOccupational & industrial medicinePreventive medicinePublic health

Identifiers

PMID35641015
PMCPMC9157349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.