ArticleBMJ open2025
Uncovering gaps in workforce well-being: a national look at survey practice in Dutch university medical centres - an exploratory quantitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMaintaining a healthy workforce is crucial for safe, high-quality care. To enhance well-being and engagement in Dutch university medical centres (UMCs), an overview of staff well-being and job perceptions is needed first. Surveys are widely used to improve working conditions, but varying questionnaires hinder a comprehensive view. This study aimed to evaluate the content of employee surveys currently used in UMCs in the Netherlands from a well-being perspective and to analyse the survey results at a national level.
methodsAll seven UMCs were approached to participate in the study and share employee survey data. The primary outcome of interest is work experience; a secondary analysis was conducted. Items were categorised following the Job Demands-Resources model. Descriptive statistics were presented as percentages, means and medians with IQRs.
resultsTwo UMCs participated and 31 862 completed surveys were included. Variation in survey items (eg, 15-18 subcategories, 21-33 question items), response options (eg, 1-5, 1-10), frequency (1-3 times per year) and timing were found. Scores on the following outcomes are presented: work overload, coworker support, job control, organisational justice, participation in decision-making, performance feedback, possibilities for learning and development, recognition, task variety, team atmosphere, team effectiveness, trust in leadership, other job resources, connecting/inspiring leadership, self-efficacy, goal-directiveness, boredom, burnout, job satisfaction, work engagement, other employee well-being, commitment organisation/team and work ability. Results should be interpreted with caution, and solely found for hospital A, for certain job control items, median scores of 2 or 3 were observed, whereas the majority of other question items revealed a median score of 4.
conclusionsThere is a significant lack of cohesion across employee surveys. As it stands, employee surveys in Dutch UMCs are not effective tools for monitoring the work experience or well-being of the healthcare workforce. While these surveys may support management decisions, this support is not reflected in interventions related to work and the work environment.
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.