ArticleBMJ open2024
Methodological issues in measuring psychosocial safety climate: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving Nursing Team Collaboration Through Nurses' Digital Literacy: A Variable-Centered and Person-Centered Perspective.Journal of nursing management · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis systematic review aims to highlight the methodological inconsistencies in studying psychosocial safety climate (PSC). Highlighting the diverse dimensions and implications of PSC, this review seeks to enhance the replicability and comparability of studies, contributing to the development of standardised measurement techniques for the construct. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodology encompasses a comprehensive search strategy in PubMed Central, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, Embase, Science Direct, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar from 28 January 2024 to 30 September 2024. A team of trained reviewers, under the guidance of the authors, will scrutinise eligible studies for inclusion based on predefined criteria. This will ensure a diverse yet focused selection of articles aligned with the research objectives. Robust data extraction and appraisal processes will be followed. Adopting a qualitative synthesis approach, the review aims to generate descriptive and analytical themes, uncovering nuanced dimensions of PSC beyond individual study findings. The protocol emphasises consultation with domain experts and a chartered librarian to refine research questions and optimise search strategies for selecting very relevant articles for the review. We will adopt qualitative data synthesis in summarising and presenting the results and findings for our review of PSC methodological issues. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed for this systematic review because the data for this review will be extracted from already published journal articles. The protocol for this review has been registered in the Open Science Framework. This review and its findings will be published in an academic journal and or presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3UZC2.
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.