SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Properties of Instruments Screening for Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers-A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chronic stress in relation to clinical burnout: an integrative scoping review of definitions and measurement approaches.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- The Level and Associated Factors of Creative Deviance of Clinical Nurses.Nursing open · 2026Observational
- Physician and Medical Student Burnout, a Narrative Literature Review: Challenges, Strategies, and a Call to Action.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Mobile apps, AI, and teletherapy: a comprehensive review of digital mental health tools for nurses.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Well-being of family physicians during COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Exploring the potential of stratum corneum biomarkers for assessing psychological distress in health care workers: An observational pilot study.Health science reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstruments with sufficient diagnostic accuracy are better able to detect healthcare workers (HCWs) who are at risk of psychological distress. The objective of this review is to examine the diagnostic accuracy and measurement properties of psychological distress instruments in HCWs.
methodsWe searched in Embase, Medline and PsycINFO from 2000 to February 2021. We included studies if they reported on the diagnostic accuracy of an instrument. To assess the methodological quality of the studies with regard to diagnostic accuracy, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and, for the measurement properties, the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).
resultsSeventeen studies reporting on eight instruments were included. Overall, the methodological quality assessing the diagnostic accuracy and measurement properties was low, specifically for items addressing the domain 'index test'. The items addressing 'reference standard', 'time and flow' and 'patient selection' were mostly unclear. The criterion validity of the single-item burnout, the Burnout-Thriving Index, and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) was sufficient, with area under the curve ranging from 0.75 to 0.92 and sensitivity 71-84%, respectively.
conclusionOur findings indicate that it is questionable whether screening for HCWs at risk of psychological distress can be performed sufficiently with the included instruments due to the low numbers of studies per instrument and the low methodological quality.
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.