SynthesisBMJ open2022
Impact of intrawork rest breaks on doctors' performance and well-being: systematic review.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Work-break interventions for preventing musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of virtual reality applications on the anxiety levels of emergency department physicians during 24-h shifts.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Could breaks reduce general practitioner burnout and improve safety? A daily diary study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors' well-being and/or performance at work.
designSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelines DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: No restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality was appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively.
resultsDatabase searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies. DISCUSSION: Using existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.
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.