Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707472›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2024

Insights into general practitioners' self-care across 38 countries during the pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

Ivana Keenan, Esther Van Poel, Els Clays, Sara Willems, Milena Šantrić Milićević, Katica Tripković, Liubovė Murauskienė, Kathryn Hoffmann, Radost Assenova, Carmen Busneag and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2024. 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

12 authors.

Ivana KeenanIrish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland. Ivana.Keenan@ICGP.IE.
Esther Van PoelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Els ClaysDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sara WillemsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Milena Šantrić MilićevićInstitute of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Katica TripkovićInstitute for Public Health, Belgrade, Serbia.
Liubovė MurauskienėDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Kathryn HoffmannDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Radost AssenovaDepartment of Urology and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Carmen BusneagSpiru Haret University, Bucharest, Romania.
Gazmend BojajManagement of Health Institutions and Services, Faculty of Health Science, Heimerer College, Pristina, Kosovo.
Claire CollinsIrish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe adoption of healthy self-care practices has proven necessary for professional life, as they often serve as a shield against stressors in the workplace. The COVID-19 pandemic created a high strain on general practitioners (GPs), contributing to increased workload, burnout, and anxiety. The present study aimed to identify self-care practices adopted by GPs amid the COVID-19 pandemic; and to explore the relationships between self-care practices and risk of distress.

methodsThe current study utilized an online questionnaire arriving from the PRICOV-19 study, which was distributed among GP practices across 38 countries. The main focus was on the open-text responses where participants disclosed self-care practices employed to maintain mental health during COVID-19. The Six Domains of Self-Care theoretical framework was applied to investigate GP self-care practices across 6 domains including Physical, Professional, Relational, Emotional, Psychological, and Spiritual. The Mayo Clinic Well-Being Index (eWBI) was applied to assess mental well-being and risk of distress among GPs. The analysis was carried out using SPSS Statistics software.

resultsIn total, 2,949 GPs provided open-text responses on maintaining their mental health. 65.5% of GPs had an eWBI score of ≥ 2 and were considered at risk of distress. The majority of the participants prioritised physical (61.7%), followed by relational (38.0%) and psychological (34.6%) self-care practices to maintain their mental health during the pandemic. GPs who applied relational, physical, and professional self-care were significantly less likely to experience depression, stress, and emotional exhaustion, in comparison with the ones who did not apply these practices. GPs who practiced professional self-care practices had the lowest distress risk (eWBI = 1.99). Overall, 5% of GPs disclosed not applying any practices to maintain their mental health during the pandemic and were the most prone to mental health distress.

conclusionsGPs have navigated the pandemic uniquely, and despite applying self-care practices they faced some level of impact, hence self-care interventions for healthcare professionals should be regarded as essential rather than optional. A long-term investment in strategies focused on improving GPs' self-care is necessary to increase resilience among GPs and ensure their optimal well-being levels are achieved.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersSelf CareAdultAnxietyBurnout, ProfessionalCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19General practitionersSelf-careWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID39707472
PMCPMC11662612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.