ArticleBMC health services research2023
Measuring provider well-being: initial validation of a brief engagement survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare Professionals' Subjective Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal of Conceptual Models, Measurement Instruments, and Associated Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Initial validation of a single-item burnout measure among rural healthcare professionals.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement is one of the critical ingredients to addressing the well-being of health care professionals. However, administering an organization-wide well-being survey can be challenging due to constraints like survey fatigue, financial limitations, and other system priorities. One way to address these issues is to embed well-being items into already existing assessment tools that are administered on a regular basis, such as an employee engagement survey. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of a brief engagement survey, that included a small subset of well-being items, among health care providers working in an academic medical center.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, health care providers, including physicians and advanced clinical practitioners, employed at an academic medical center completed a brief, digital engagement survey consisting of 11 quantitative items and 1 qualitative item administered by Dialogue™. The emphasis of this study was on the quantitative responses. Item responses were compared by sex and degree, domains were identified via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and internal consistency of item responses was assessed via McDonald's omega. Sample burnout was compared against national burnout.
resultsOf the 791 respondents, 158 (20.0%) were Advanced Practice Clinicians (APCs), and 633 (80.0%) were Medical Doctors (MDs). The engagement survey, with 11 items, had a high internal consistency with an omega ranging from 0.80-0.93 and was shown, via EFA, to have three domains including communication, well-being, and engagement. Significant differences for some of the 11 items, by sex and degree, in the odds of their agreement responses were found. In this study, 31.5% reported experiencing burnout, which was significantly lower than the national average of 38.2%.
conclusionOur findings indicate initial reliability, validity, and utility of a brief, digital engagement survey among health care professionals. This may be particularly useful for medical groups or health care organizations who are unable to administer their own discrete well-being survey to employees.
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.