Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37032950›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

A systematic scoping review on the evidence behind debriefing practices for the wellbeing/emotional outcomes of healthcare workers.

Thomas Rhys Evans, Calvin Burns, Ryan Essex, Gina Finnerty, Ella Hatton, Andrew James Clements, Genevieve Breau, Francis Quinn, Helen Elliott, Lorraine D Smith and 17 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

27 authors.

Thomas Rhys EvansSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Calvin BurnsSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Ryan EssexInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Gina FinnertyInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Ella HattonSchool of Psychology, Arden University, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Andrew James ClementsAston Business School, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Genevieve BreauSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Francis QuinnSchool of Applied Social Studies, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Helen ElliottSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Lorraine D SmithSchool of Education, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Barry MatthewsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Kath JenningsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Jodie CrossmanSchool of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Gareth WilliamsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Denise MillerSchool of Education, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Benjamin HaroldSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Philip GurnettSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Lee JagodzinskiSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Julie SmithSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Wendy MilliganSchool of Health Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Marianne MarkowskiInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Peter CollinsSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Yuki YoshimatsuSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Jordi Margalef TurullUniversity Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Mark ColpusSchool of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Mark L DaysonInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.
Sharon WeldonInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Debriefings give healthcare workers voice through the opportunity to discuss unanticipated or difficult events and recommend changes. The typical goal of routine debriefings has been to improve clinical outcomes by learning through discussion and reflection of events and then transferring that learning into clinical practice. However, little research has investigated the effects of debriefings on the emotional experiences and well-being of healthcare workers. There is some evidence that debriefings are a multi-faceted and cost-effective intervention for minimising negative health outcomes, but their use is inconsistent and they are infrequently adopted with the specific intention of giving healthcare workers a voice. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is therefore to assess the scope of existing evidence on debriefing practices for the well-being and emotional outcomes of healthcare workers. Methods: Following screening, 184 papers were synthesised through keyword mapping and exploratory trend identification. Results: The body of evidence reviewed were clustered geographically, but diverse on many other criteria of interest including the types of evidence produced, debriefing models and practices, and outcomes captured. Discussion: The current review provides a clear map of our existing understanding and highlights the need for more systematic, collaborative and rigorous bodies of evidence to determine the potential of debriefing to support the emotional outcomes of those working within healthcare. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/za6rj.

Indexed as

debriefingemotionhealthcaresystematic reviewvoicewellbeing

Identifiers

PMID37032950
PMCPMC10080145

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.