Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39209501›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Workplace violence against female healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

May-Elizabeth Pere-Ere Ajuwa, Clair-Antoine Veyrier, Lorraine Cousin Cabrolier, Olivier Chassany, Fabienne Marcellin, Issifou Yaya, Martin Duracinsky

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

7 authors.

May-Elizabeth Pere-Ere Ajuwa *URC ECO, Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Clair-Antoine Veyrier *URC ECO, Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France clair-antoine.veyrier@aphp.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3497-0382
Lorraine Cousin CabrolierURC ECO, Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Olivier ChassanyURC ECO, Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Fabienne MarcellinUMR912 (SESSTIM), INSERM, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8853-3829
Issifou YayaURC ECO, Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Martin DuracinskyURC ECO, Assistance Publique - Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkplace violence (WPV) is highly prevalent in the health sector and remains a major occupational issue causing significant harm, ranging from bodily and psychological harm to death. Female healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of WPV.

objectivesIdentify risk factors of WPV among different professional categories of female HCWs. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, along with their references lists January 2010 and March 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language observational studies focusing on WPV among HCWs evaluating the risk factors, impacts and consequences of WPV in female HCWs.

methodRisk of bias was assessed for all studies by Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. We estimated the pooled prevalence of WPV and the associated 95% CI using a random-effects meta-analysis model. We then described the associated factors and effects of WPV.

results28 reviewed studies (24 quantitative, 4 qualitative and 1 mixed-method) from 20 countries were selected. From the available results of 16 studies, the pooled prevalence of WPV was estimated at 45.0% (95% CI 32% to 58%). Types of violence included verbal abuse, verbal threats, physical assaults, sexual harassment, mobbing, bullying and discrimination. Perpetrators were patients, patients' relatives, colleagues and supervisors. Nurses were the most studied HCWs category. WPV was found to affect both mental and physical health. Age, marital status, lower occupational position, substance abuse, shorter work experience and low support at work were the main socio-demographic and organisational factors associated with higher risk of WPV.

conclusionWPV prevalence is high among female HCWs, warranting a multilevel intervention approach to address and mitigate its impact. This approach should include targeted policies and individual-level strategies to create a safer work environment and prevent adverse effects on both HCWs and the broader healthcare system. Further research is needed to better document WPV in categories of HCWs other than nurses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022329574.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelWorkplace ViolenceFemaleHumansPrevalenceRisk FactorsWorkplaceHealth & safetyMENTAL HEALTHMeta-AnalysisPUBLIC HEALTHRisk FactorsSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID39209501
PMCPMC11369783

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.