Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40208746›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2025

The second victim phenomenon´s impact in male and female healthcare workers: a scoping review.

Vanessa Ribeiro Neves, Virtudes Pérez-Jover, Geisa Colebrusco de Souza Gonçalves, Patrícia Bover Draganov, Laís Maria de Campos, Reinhard Strametz, Paulo Jorge Sousa, Susanna Tella, José Joaquín Mira

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Vanessa Ribeiro NevesEscola Paulista de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 754, Sao Paulo 04023-062, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2226-4723
Virtudes Pérez-JoverDepartment of Health Psychology, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Avinguda de la Universitat d'Elx, s/n, Elche, Alicante 03202, Spain.
Geisa Colebrusco de Souza GonçalvesEscola Paulista de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 754, Sao Paulo 04023-062, Brazil.
Patrícia Bover DraganovEscola Paulista de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 754, Sao Paulo 04023-062, Brazil.
Laís Maria de CamposEscola Paulista de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros, 754, Sao Paulo 04023-062, Brazil.
Reinhard StrametzWiesbaden Business School, RheinMain University of Applied Sciences, Bleichstraße, 44, Wiesbaden 65183, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9920-8674
Paulo Jorge SousaPublic Health Research Centre, National School of Public Health, NOVA University Lisbon, Avenida Padre Cruz, Lisbon 1600-560, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9502-6075
Susanna TellaFaculty of Health Care and Social Services, LAB University of Applied Sciences, Yliopistonkatu, 36, Lappeenranta FI-53850, Finland.
José Joaquín MiraDepartment of Health Psychology, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Avinguda de la Universitat d'Elx, s/n, Elche, Alicante 03202, Spain.

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior Finance code 001European Cooperation in Science and Technology COST Action RESCUE IG19113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe second-victim phenomenon occurs when a healthcare provider experiences trauma after being profoundly affected by a negative medical event. As a work-related phenomenon, it may be influenced by sex and gender-related factors, particularly since women constitute 70% of the health and social sector workforce. This study aims to describe the impact of the second-victim phenomenon on male and female healthcare professionals, identifying differences in their experiences. It also identifies differences in the reactions and behavior of supervisors, colleagues, patients, and their relatives to errors made by male and female healthcare workers.

methodsA scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension guidelines. Comprehensive searches were performed in the electronic databases BDENF, ProQuest, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, without filters or time limits. Original articles in Portuguese, English, Spanish, or German that mentioned any aspects concerning differences between male and female healthcare workers in relation to the second-victim phenomenon were selected.

resultsTwenty-seven articles were included, most of which were cross-sectional studies from the USA, China, Germany, and Spain, conducted among physicians and nurses. The findings highlighted that women experienced more intense anxiety responses in the aftermath of severe adverse events than men. Male healthcare workers were more resistant to seeking support compared to their female counterparts. Gender-based discrimination against women was identified in both education and practice, further exacerbating the second victim syndrome experienced by female healthcare professionals.

conclusionUnderstanding male/female differences is essential for comprehending the second-victim phenomenon and designing effective measures to mitigate its impact. Women may be more psychologically affected by adverse events than men. They are judged more negatively than men after making an error and are more likely to seek help.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMedical ErrorsFemaleHumansMaleSex Factorsgender issueshealthcare systemhealthcare workerhuman factorspatient safetysecond victim

Identifiers

PMID40208746
PMCPMC12510431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.