Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39021657›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Evaluating well-being and psychosocial risks in academia: Is management the "forgotten phase"?

Andreina Bruno, Giuseppina Dell'Aversana, Silvia Gilardi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andreina BrunoDepartment of Education Sciences, Università degli studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Giuseppina Dell'AversanaDepartment of Psychology, Università degli studi Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Silvia GilardiDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, Università degli studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in attention towards promoting well-being within academic settings. In the specific context of academia, a critical issue is understanding whether the current practices for assessing and managing well-being can bridge the implementation gap and increase opportunities for creating healthy academic conditions. The paper explores the practices adopted for assessing and managing work-related stress (WRS) risks in Italian academia by referring to data from a group of Italian universities of the QoL@Work network (Quality of Life at Work in academia). The aim is to improve understanding of the factors that influence the realization of a WRS risk assessment-management pathway and how they may facilitate or hinder the transition from assessment to the implementation of interventions in the academic context. The results suggest that the assessment-management pathway should prioritize the creation of organizational scaffolding to support participatory processes in order to prevent the data collected from failing to stimulate organizational change in working conditions.

Indexed as

evaluationhealthy universityhigher educationimplementation gappsychosocial riskspsychosocial work environmentwork-related stress

Identifiers

PMID39021657
PMCPMC11252066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.