ArticleBMJ open2022
The kindness COVID-19 toolkit: a mixed-methods evaluation of a programme designed by doctors in training for doctors in training.
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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to Support the Mental Health of Frontline Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of wellness program interventions to improve physician wellness: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Building a data-driven evaluation framework of physician wellness initiatives: a rapid review.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Making the invisible visible: a case study of the healing hearts initiative within the SEED wellbeing program in Australian healthcare.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- What's the role of kindness in the healthcare context? A scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Evaluating a peer-led wellbeing programme for doctors-in-training during the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia, using the Most Significant Change technique.Evaluation journal of Australasia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe impact of a coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-specific professional development programme on the well-being of obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) doctors in training (DiT) working during the pandemic.
designA mixed-method evaluation of a single group pre-post test design study.
settingMelbourne, Australia between September 2020 and April 2021.
participants55 O&G DiT working across four healthcare sites of a major tertiary hospital in Victoria, Australia, were included in the programme.
interventionsThe delivery of a codesigned peer-to-peer programme, which identified and addressed the well-being goals of O&G DiT. Seven interactive workshops were run alongside the implementation of a number of participant-led wellness initiatives.
main outcome measuresRepeated-measures analysis of WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5) and Copenhagen Burnout Innovatory (CBI) scores across three time points during the programme. Multilevel generalised linear mixed-effects models with random intercept were fit to the data, both in the entire population (intention-to-treat) and restricted to those who attended the workshop ('per-protocol' analysis). Participatory experiences and programme learning were captured using the Most Significant Change (MSC) technique, which included inductive thematic analysis.
resultsWe demonstrated an overall 31.9% improvement in well-being scores (p=0.006). The MSC evaluation captured a shift in workplace culture as a result of the programme, with improvement across the domains of connection, caring, communication, confidence and cooperation.
conclusionsWe have successfully used a mixed-method approach to contextualise a productive programme to improve the well-being of COVID-19 front-line healthcare workers.
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.