ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Assessment of clinician well-being and the factors that influence it using validated questionnaires: a systematic review.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health effects of plants, light, and natural elements of biophilic interventions in confined settings: a systematic review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Association Between Patient Behavior and Clinician Emotional Burden, Perceived Performance, and Decision-Making in Implant Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Clinicians.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
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
backgroundMeasuring clinician experiences of care and well-being (e.g. job satisfaction, fulfillment) offers insights into the practice environment's impact, aiding workforce retention, patient safety, and care quality. However, valid measurement instruments are essential. This systematic review identified validated self-reported questionnaires designed to assess clinician well-being and its influencing factors.
methodsPsychometric studies in English or French on measurement instruments addressing factors that influence clinician well-being, as proposed by the National Academy of Medicine, were included. Studies published between 2013 and 2023 were retrieved in December 2023 by searching these databases: CINAHL, Embase, HaPI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Mental Measurements Yearbook, and APA PsycTests. Study selection was completed by two independent reviewers. Results were summarized narratively, in tables, and figures. Quality of psychometric studies was assessed by the number of measurement properties addressed. The review protocol was registered with INPLASY® (202410047).
resultsOut of 10,441 records identified, 136 studies are included. The majority come from the USA (27.2%), Spain (11.0%), Canada (5.9%), or Australia (5.9%). Most focus on instruments for clinicians, regardless of their specialty (55.9%). Among profession-specific instruments (44.1%), nurses and physicians are mainly targeted. The most common domains are: (1) 'Learning/practice environment' (38.2%), (2) 'Healthcare responsibilities' (21.3%), and (3) 'Organizational factors' (19.1%). The most frequently addressed measurement properties are: (1) Internal consistency (88.2%), (2) Structural validity (75.7%), and (3) Content validity (68.4%).
conclusionsMany tools for measuring clinician well-being exist, but few are fully validated. The results of this review provide a foundation to support ongoing psychometric evaluation and cross-cultural adaptation.
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.