SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
A Systematic Review and Evaluation of the Tools Measuring Work-Related Psychosocial Factors in Prospective Research on Sickness Absence of Health Care Workers.
Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis systematic literature review aims to list the validated tools measuring work-related psychosocial factors (WRPFs) influence health care workers' (HCWs) sickness absence (SA), and to evaluate their psychometric and practical properties.
methodsUsing the PsycINFO, Medline, and Web of Science databases, the search targeted prospective studies on WRPFs and SA in HCWs published between 2012 and 2023. The validated, self-report tools that measured WRPFs and that yielded at least one significant predictor of SA in HCWs were identified. An evaluation of the psychometric and practical properties was performed.
resultsBased on inclusion criteria, three prospective studies on HCWs were included, and twelve tools were listed. Psychometric and practical properties were "excellent" for six tools, "good" for four, and "questionable" for two.
conclusionsResearchers and occupational health practitioners can use tools with "good" to "excellent" overall quality to measure traditional WRPFs that predict SA in HCWs. There is a need to develop and validate tools that measure WRPFs representing the specific characteristics of the health care working environment. Other WRPFs relevant to the work context of HCWs can be measured by extant tools that could be used in research and program development and evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39921797What 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.