SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Measurement of compassion fatigue in animal health care professionals: a systematic review of available instruments and their content validity.
Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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.
- Best Practices for Supporting Professional Identity Formation during Laboratory Animal Medicine Residency Training.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 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
Introduction: Compassion fatigue (CF) refers to emotional or physical exhaustion and emotional reactions resulting from prolonged exposure to traumatic events, commonly experienced by professionals in caregiving roles. CF is prevalent among healthcare professionals, including those in animal care. Several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were developed to measure CF, but their psychometric validity was not reviewed systematically. This study aims to identify and review the content validity of CF PROMs used in animal health care professionals. Methods: Literature was searched in PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE (1973-2023). We included studies conducted in animal health care professionals, using a PROM to measure CF, reporting at least one psychometric property of this PROM, and published as original research. For each identified PROM, additional literature search was conducted to identify PROM development and content validation studies. Three independent reviewers evaluated the content validity of each PROM using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology and summarized the quality of evidence using a modified GRADE approach. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023433982) and results reported following PRISMA guidelines. Results: Initially, 1709 studies were identified. After a double screening, 17 eligible studies were included. CF was measured using six different PROMs or their modified versions. Only one PROM specifically targeted animal health care professionals: the ProQOL-5 Veterinary Medicine Version. This and three other original CF PROMs were reviewed. For all PROMs, the quality of content validity was rated as insufficient due to deficiencies in the concept and items elicitation, inadequate target population representation, and inadequate details on cognitive interview procedures. The overall evidence quality was rated as low due to a limited number of PROM validation studies, poor methodological and reporting quality, and indirect result. Discussion: There is a scarcity of studies examining CF within the target population, and the quality of evidence for content validity of the reviewed PROMs for CF measurement is currently low. CF definition and construct description in PROM development studies suffer from vagueness and seem inadequately reflected by the content of the reviewed PROMs. Further research with a robust methodology seems necessary to address the identified flows. Systematic review registration: Measurement of compassion fatigue in people working with animals: protocol for a systematic review. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023433982. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023433982.
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.