Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39153793›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Prioritising nurses' and doctors' health at work: a scoping review of monitoring instruments.

Amber Boskma, Kim Braak, Kiki Demenaga, Demy Idema, Lotty Hooft, Götz Wietasch, Arie Franx, Maarten J van der Laan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

Amber BoskmaNetherlands Federation of University Medical Centers, Utrecht, Netherlands a.c.p.boskma@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6576-4824
Kim BraakCochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4544-4628
Kiki DemenagaDepartment of Intensive Care, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0006-9463-0936
Demy IdemaCochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Lotty HooftCochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7950-2980
Götz WietaschDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8001-5648
Arie FranxNetherlands Federation of University Medical Centers, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8801-5546
Maarten J van der LaanNetherlands Federation of University Medical Centers, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3125-1342

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNurses' and doctors' health at work is crucial for their overall performance and the quality of care they provide. The Jobs Demands Resources (JD-R) model offers a framework for health at work, encompassing 'job demands', 'job resources', 'personal resources', 'leadership', 'well-being' and 'outcomes'. While various instruments exist to measure health, an overview of instruments specifically designed for assessing nurses and doctors health is currently missing. This study provides a comprehensive overview of available health instruments specifically developed and validated for healthcare professionals in hospital care.

designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing the health of nurses and/or doctors in hospitals using or evaluating instruments based on the JD-R model, published between January 2011 and January 2024, excluding student-exclusive samples. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data on study and sample characteristics, as well as details of the measurement instruments, including main and subconstructs. Instruments were categorised based on the JD-R model domains. Descriptive analysis and data visualisation were performed using Excel and Python.

resultsWe included 1204 studies, reporting 986 unique instruments. We identified 32 comprehensive instruments suitable for broad health screening, measuring four or more of the JD-R model domains. Additionally, we identified instruments focusing on specific domains for targeted screening needs. Furthermore, we present frequently reported instruments assumed to be extensively evaluated, user-friendly, accessible and available in multiple languages.

conclusionsHealth at work cannot be determined by a single instrument alone, underscoring the multidimensional nature of workplace health. Alternatively, organisations should select instruments based on domains most relevant and applicable to their context. This approach ensures a more comprehensive assessment of health at work.

Indexed as

PhysiciansHealth StatusHumansNursesOccupational HealthWorkplaceburnout, professionalmental healthoccupational stressrisk management

Identifiers

PMID39153793
PMCPMC11331843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.