ArticleBMJ open2022
Quality of working life of medical doctors and associated risk factors: a cross-sectional survey in public hospitals in China.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and influencing factors of workplace violence among doctors in Northeast China: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Extended working hours, income, and multidimensional wellbeing among physicians in China: a cross-sectional mediation analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Burnout and Quality of Work Life among Physicians during Internships in Public Hospitals in Thailand.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the quality of working life (QWL) of medical doctors and associated risk factors. SETTING AND
participantsA cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 2915 medical doctors from 48 hospitals was conducted in China.
methodsThe QWL-7-32 scale was adopted to assess seven domains of QWL: physical health, mental health, job and career satisfaction, work passion and initiative, professional pride, professional competence, and balance between work and family. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were analysed using SPSS V.19.0. Analysis of variance tests and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify the sociodemographic characteristics and job factors associated with overall QWL and its seven subdomain scores.
resultsOn average, the respondents reported an overall QWL score of 92.51 (SD=17.74) of a possible 160. Over 35% of respondents reported more than 60 hours of weekly working time; 59.9% experienced night sleep deprivation frequently; 16.6% encountered workplace violence frequently. The multivariate regression models revealed that the eastern region (β≤-2.887 for non-eastern regions, p<0.001), shorter working hours (β≤-2.638 for over 40 hours a week, p<0.01), less frequent night sleep deprivation (β≤-5.366 for sometimes or frequent, p<0.001), higher income (β≥2.795 for lower income, p<0.001) and less frequent encounters of workplace violence (β≤-9.267 for sometimes or frequent, p<0.001) were significant predictors of higher QWL. Night sleep deprivation and workplace violence were common predictors (p<0.05) for all seven domains of QWL.
conclusionThe low QWL of medical doctors working in public hospitals in China is evident, which is associated with high workloads, low rewards and workplace violence. There are also significant regional differences in the QWL of medical doctors, with the eastern developed region featuring better QWL. Public hospitals in China are facing serious challenges in occupational health and safety, which needs to be addressed through a systems approach.
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.