Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35788075›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Why do acute healthcare staff engage in unprofessional behaviours towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review protocol.

Jill Maben, Justin Avery Aunger, Ruth Abrams, Mark Pearson, Judy M Wright, Johanna Westbrook, Russell Mannion, Aled Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Jill MabenSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK j.maben@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6168-0455
Justin Avery AungerSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6975-4570
Ruth AbramsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Mark PearsonWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7628-7421
Judy M WrightFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5239-0173
Johanna WestbrookAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Russell MannionHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Aled JonesSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2921-8236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnprofessional behaviours encompass many behaviours including bullying, harassment and microaggressions. These behaviours between healthcare staff are problematic; they affect people's ability to work, to feel psychologically safe at work and speak up and to deliver safe care to patients. Almost a fifth of UK National Health Service staff experience unprofessional behaviours in the workplace, with higher incidence in acute care settings and for staff from minority backgrounds. Existing analyses have investigated the effectiveness of strategies to reduce these behaviours. We seek to go beyond these, to understand the range and causes of such behaviours, their negative effects and how mitigation strategies may work, in which contexts and for whom. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses a realist review methodology with stakeholder input comprising a number of iterative steps: (1) formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches and literature already known to the study team, (2) performing systematic and purposive searches for grey and peer-reviewed literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases as well as Google and Google Scholar, (3) selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance, (4) extracting data, (5) and synthesising and (6) refining the programme theories by testing the theories against the newly identified literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required as this study is a secondary research. An impact strategy has been developed which includes working closely with key stakeholders throughout the project. Step 7 of our project will develop pragmatic resources for managers and professionals, tailoring contextually-sensitive strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours, identifying what works for which groups. We will be guided by the 'Evidence Integration Triangle' to implement the best strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours in given contexts. Dissemination will occur through presentation at conferences, innovative methods (cartoons, videos, animations and/or interactive performances) and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255490.

Indexed as

Research DesignState MedicineDelivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansProfessional Misconducthealth policyhealth & safetyorganisation of health servicesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35788075
PMCPMC9255388

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.