Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40216540›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2025

Support for hospital doctors' workplace well-being in England: the Care Under Pressure 3 realist evaluation.

Anna Melvin, Alison Pearson, Daniele Carrieri, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Jessica Scott, Helen Foster Collins, Stuart McPhail, Mark Pearson, Chrysanthi Papoutsi and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Anna MelvinDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-0923
Alison PearsonDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4341-1267
Daniele CarrieriDepartment of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3143-8430
Charlotte BramwellDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Jason HancockDevon Partnership NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6342-9555
Jessica ScottDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Helen Foster CollinsDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Stuart McPhailDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Mark PearsonInstitute of Clinical & Applied Health Research, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1189-7100
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-4157
Karen MattickDepartment of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK K.L.Mattick@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1800-773X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe vital role of medical workforce well-being for improving patient experience and population health while assuring safety and reducing costs is recognised internationally. Yet the persistence of poor well-being outcomes suggests that current support initiatives are suboptimal. The aim of this research study was to work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.

methodsRealist evaluation consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II quality standards. Realist interviews (n=124) with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders in eight hospital settings (England) were analysed using realist logic.

resultsThere were four key findings, underpinned by 21 context-mechanism-outcome configurations: (1) solutions needed to align with problems, to support doctor well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) doctors needed to be involved in creating solutions to their well-being problems; (3) doctors often did not know what support was available to help them with well-being problems and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionDoctors are mandated to 'first, do no harm' to their patients, and the same consideration should be extended to doctors themselves. Since doctors can be harmed by poorly designed or implemented well-being interventions, new approaches need careful planning and evaluation. Our research identified many ineffective or harmful interventions that could be stopped. The findings are likely transferable to other settings and countries, given the realist approach leading to principles and causal explanations.

Indexed as

Medical Staff, HospitalOccupational HealthPhysiciansWorkplaceEnglandHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Researchhealth services researchhumanenessleadershippatient safetyteams

Identifiers

PMID40216540
PMCPMC12229071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.