ArticlePloS one2025
Interventions for burnout and well-being in homelessness staff: A systematic scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Supporting street medicine through medical informatics: a manifesto on research needs.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities in embedding core components of substance use health care into Housing First programs.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Trauma inquiry and response in sexual and reproductive health settings: collaborative learning among clinicians.Reproductive health · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHomelessness staff often experience high job demands, limited resources, and significant emotional strains; with high levels of burnout, stress, and trauma being common within the workforce. Despite growing recognition of these issues, limited literature exists on interventions to address them. This study aims to conduct a systematic scoping review to map and identify interventions aimed at improving well-being and reducing burnout among homelessness staff.
methodsAll eligible studies needed to include an intervention addressing burnout and/or well-being in homelessness staff, published in English with primary data. Evidence sources were left open with no data restrictions. Following protocol registration, a systematic search of five electronic databases (Medline, APA PsychInfo, Global Health, ASSIA, CINAHL) and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies were double-screened for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsOf the 5,775 screened studies, six met the inclusion criteria: two peer-reviewed and four non-peer-reviewed publications. No studies were retrieved from Google Scholar. The included studies comprised four quantitative non-randomised designs, one randomised controlled trial, and one mixed-methods study. All included studies were complex interventions. Three were therapy-based, two included supervision, and two were one-time educational sessions. Most were conducted in the United States (n = 4), with two in the United Kingdom. The total pooled sample was 347 participants, though four studies were missing demographic data (age and gender). The studies used heterogenous measures and outcomes. Limitations included restrictions to English-only publications, potential gaps in capturing well-being measures, and a limited grey literature scope.
conclusionThere is a lack of research on well-being and burnout interventions in frontline homelessness staff. Identified studies were generally low quality, using heterogenous measures and outcomes to assess well-being and burnout, limiting the generalisability of findings. Future research should employ more robust study designs with standardised measures and outcomes.
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.