ArticleCureus2025
Engaging Virtually: Assessing the Impact of Schwartz Rounds in the Digital Era.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Burnout and emotional strain among healthcare professionals are prevalent issues, impacting their personal wellbeing and affecting the quality of care they provide to patients. The Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) attempted to address some of these challenges by creating Schwartz Rounds®, which is a platform for caregivers to openly discuss the social and emotional aspects of their work. Our study evaluates the role played by virtual Schwartz Rounds in supporting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between April 2021 and November 2023, 28 virtual Schwartz Rounds sessions were hosted with a total recorded attendance of 2664. A total of 557 participants submitted completed survey responses and these were overwhelmingly positive, including new insights into colleagues' and patients' perspectives, reduced feelings of isolation, and increased openness in discussing patient care. Facilitators received high praise and nearly all attendees expressed their intent to attend future sessions. While the offering of incentives (e.g., Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit and raffle prizes) showed no significant impact on attendance or survey completion, the "challenge-focused" sessions were associated with higher attendance. Overall, our findings support virtual Schwartz Rounds as a way to promote staff well-being and collaboration. Future studies should be conducted at other institutions to assess the generalizability of our findings.
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.