ArticleHeliyon2023
Outcomes of engagement: A systematic literature review and future research directions.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Measuring enablers and indicators of employee engagement: Internal validity of the Flow@Work engagement survey.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence usage, breakthrough innovation, and innovation performance in high-tech enterprises: the nonlinear moderating role of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- The influencing factors of nurses' job engagement in tertiary, A grade hospitals in East China: A cross-sectional study.Nursing open · 2024Article
- The concept, technical architecture, applications and impacts of satellite internet: A systematic literature review.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Outcomes of engagement: A systematic literature review and future research directions.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The impact of organizational politics on work engagement-the mediating role of the doctrine of the mean.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
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
This study aims to present a systematic literature review of high-quality contributions in the research area of engagement focusing on studies that examine engagement outcomes. More specifically, a systematic review of the relevant literature on engagement outcomes is conducted providing a broad range of knowledge regarding the overall scope and the extent of each peer-reviewed article. Moreover, the study takes into consideration three types of engagement, i.e., work, employee, and job engagement, categorizing individual-level as well as organization-level outcomes of engagement. Additionally, based on a thorough examination of engagement outcomes, a further purpose of this study is to classify each engagement outcome factor into more general categories in respect of individual- and organizational-level outcomes of engagement. The systematic literature review was conducted drawing on an evidence base of 50 articles published in high-ranking journals during the years 2000-2022. The final results provide quantitative data regarding the scope and the extent of each article and map the individual- and organization-level outcomes of work, employee, and job engagement through an in-depth overview of the literature. Finally, future research directions are identified by providing added value to scholars interested in the engagement field of research.
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.