ArticlePloS one2025
Close to the border-Resilience in healthcare in a European border region: Findings of a needs analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPromoting resilience, the ability to withstand and overcome challenging situations, is crucial for maintaining the performance of healthcare systems. Unique challenges faced by healthcare facilities in border regions render them particularly vulnerable during crises, emphasizing the need to promote resilience in these areas. The current study evaluated the state and needs of resilience in healthcare professionals in a representative European border region.
methodsAll hospitals and emergency medical care services in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands) were approached to participate via an online-survey. Behavioral data on psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4), work-related stressors, individual resilience (Brief Resilience Scale, Resilience at Work scale), and organizational resilience (Benchmark Resilience Tool-short) were collected.
results2233 participants initiated the survey with 500 responses included in the analysis. 46% of the participants indicated clinically significant psychological distress. Most challenging stressors were staff availability, available time, and workload. On average, individual resilience was in the normal range, yet 15.6% showed below average resilience. At the organizational level, healthcare institutions can particularly enhance resilience in the domains of Internal resources, Situation Awareness, and Unity of purpose. Compared to their neighbor countries, German healthcare professionals indicated higher levels of depressive symptoms, were more burdened by work-related stressors, and reported lower levels of organizational resilience.
conclusionFindings highlight that healthcare institutions not only need to promote the resilience of the individual employee particularly in border regions, healthcare institutions, must also act to be better prepared for potential threats and crises while considering each country's unique needs.
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.