Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39421894›Full record

ReviewBJPsych bulletin2025

Workplace bullying of psychiatric trainees: systematic review.

Paul A Maguire, Fiona A Wilkes, Stephen Allison, Tarun Bastiampillai, Matt Brazel, Jeffrey C L Looi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Paul A MaguireThe Australian National University School of Medicine and Psychology, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5002-9918
Fiona A WilkesThe Australian National University School of Medicine and Psychology, Canberra, Australia.
Stephen AllisonConsortium of Australian Academic Psychiatrists for Independent Policy and Research Analysis (CAPIPRA), Canberra, Australia.
Tarun BastiampillaiConsortium of Australian Academic Psychiatrists for Independent Policy and Research Analysis (CAPIPRA), Canberra, Australia.
Matt BrazelThe Australian National University School of Medicine and Psychology, Canberra, Australia.
Jeffrey C L LooiThe Australian National University School of Medicine and Psychology, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3351-6911

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

methodWe aimed to systematically review primary studies exploring workplace bullying of psychiatric trainees, including rates, forms of bullying, perpetrators and help-seeking. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase using PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criterion was primary research papers surveying or interviewing psychiatry trainees with respect to perceived workplace bullying by staff members. Exclusion criteria were secondary research papers and papers whose only focus was bullying by patients or carers.

resultsSubstantial levels of bullying were reported in all five included studies. Perpetrators were often reported to be consultants, managers or peers. Most trainees did not obtain help for bullying and harassment. All of the studies had methodological limitations. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Concerning levels of workplace bullying have been reported by psychiatric trainees in the UK and abroad. Further methodologically robust studies are required to evaluate the current levels and nature of this bullying, and strategies to prevent and manage it.

Indexed as

Bullyingperpetratorpsychiatric traineereportingworkplace

Identifiers

PMID39421894
PMCPMC12501511

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.