SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Systematic review of well-being interventions for minority healthcare workers.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workplace discrimination among Muslim nurses in the United States: a qualitative content analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Preventing and reducing burnout globally: a six continent thematic assessment.Research connections · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Healthcare workers' well-being is of utmost importance given persistent high rates of burnout, which also affects quality of care. Minority healthcare workers (MHCW) face unique challenges including structural racism and discrimination. There is limited data on interventions addressing the psychological well-being of MHCW. Thus, this systematic review aims to identify interventions specifically designed to support MHCW well-being, and to compare measures of well-being between minority and non-minority healthcare workers. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases. Two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and extraction. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT) or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria were utilized to assess the methodological quality of studies, based on the study design. Total scores as percentages of criteria met were used to determine overall quality as low (<40%), moderate (40-80%), or high (>80%). For conflicts, consensus was reached through discussion. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of study designs. Results: A total of 3,816 records were screened and 43 were included in the review. The majority of included studies (76.7%) were of moderate quality. There were no randomized control trials and only one study included a well-being intervention designed specifically for MHCW. Most (67.4%) were quantitative-descriptive studies that compared well-being measures between minority and non-minority identifying healthcare workers. Common themes identified were burnout, job retention, job satisfaction, discrimination, and diversity. There were conflicting results regarding burnout rates in MHCW vs non-minority workers with some studies citing protective resilience and lower burnout while others reported greater burnout due to compounding systemic factors. Discussion: Our findings illuminate a lack of MHCW-specific well-being programs. The conflicting findings of MHCW well-being do not eliminate the need for supports among this population. Given the distinct experiences of MHCW, the development of policies surrounding diversity and inclusion, mental health services, and cultural competency should be considered. Understanding the barriers faced by MHCW can improve both well-being among the healthcare workforce and patient care.
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.