ReviewHealth care science2023
Measuring quality of life at work for healthcare and social services workers: A systematic review of available instruments.
Review in Health care science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Intensive Care Unit Personnel: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey Assessment Before, During, and After the First Peak.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessment of clinician well-being and the factors that influence it using validated questionnaires: a systematic review.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Work-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being of Social Care Workers in the Disability Sector in Ireland.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2025Article
- The price of pressure: nationwide survey on lifestyle disturbances, occupational burnout and compromised perceived-competency among radiology residents in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Measuring quality of life at work for healthcare and social services workers: A systematic review of available instruments.Health care science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality of life at work is an important and widely discussed concept in the literature. Several instruments can be used to measure it, but with regard to healthcare and social services, the existing instruments are not well known. A review of available instruments intending to capture the quality of life of healthcare and social services workers (QoLHSSW) is necessary to better assess their working conditions and promote programs/guidelines to improve these conditions. The aim of this study was to identify the existing instruments used in measuring QoLHSSW and explore their characteristics. Particular attention was given to instruments adapted to the province of Quebec, Canada, which enabled the determination of which instruments are adapted for the measurement of QoLHSSW in Quebec and possibly elsewhere. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the JBI methodological guide. The articles' selection procedure was performed according to the PRISMA flowchart. The search was conducted up to October 28, 2021, and then updated on January 25, 2023, in four databases: PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL. The selection and extraction were performed independently by two researchers. The analysis of the quality of the studies was performed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. From a total of 8178 entries, 13 articles corresponding to 13 instruments were selected. Among these instruments, the common aspects that were considered were work conditions, job satisfaction, stress at work, relationship/balance, and career development. Most instruments used a 5-point Likert scale. Various validation methods were used, including reporting Cronbach's alpha for overall scale reliability; factor analysis to test construct validity; different model fit indices to test model superiority; different language comparisons to test cross-cultural validity; and qualitative expert reviews to assess content validity.
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.