ReviewJournal of market access & health policy2023
A systematic review of the characteristics of data assessment tools to measure medical doctors' work-related quality of life.
Review in Journal of market access & health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Criterion-Related Validity and Reliability of a Measurement Tool for Medical Doctors' Work-Related Quality of Life in Japan.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Development of a Work-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire for Medical Doctors (WQMD-9) in Japan: Questionnaire Design and Quantitative Survey.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- How gender affects the mental health of healthcare workers across regions in Thailand.BMC health services research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRemarkable progress in healthcare technology has recently been made alongside changes in concepts related to drugs and medical devices. It is speculated that this progress benefits not only patients but also healthcare professionals, such as medical doctors. We performed a systematic review of the characteristics of current data assessment tools to measure medical doctors' work-related quality of life (QOL).
methodsA literature search was conducted through PubMed and Ichushi-Web in 2020. The related search terms used were 'medical doctor,' 'quality of work life,' and 'questionnaire/interview.' Two reviewers independently screened the studies, and the characteristics of the QOL assessment tools used in the identified studies were qualitatively reviewed and summarized.
resultsIn total, 5,443 and 760 articles were retrieved from PubMed and Ichushi-Web, respectively, of which 82 studies were included in this review. Sixty-five (79%) studies used structured questionnaires, and 17 (21%) studies used semistructured questionnaires. In terms of the study purpose, the identified studies mainly included four: mental health, the work or labor situation, satisfaction, and QOL. Components used to measure work-related QOL included satisfaction, burnout, QOL, the work environment, stress, mental health, work-life balance, and others. None of the studies used an originally developed QOL questionnaire to assess the work-related benefits of medical doctors.
conclusionThis systematic review found that there is a lack of studies directly assessing the work-related QOL of medical doctors and a lack of effective data collection tools to assess all work-related QOL components.
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.