SynthesisOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2025
Measurement of doctor wellbeing prior to the Covid pandemic: a methodological systematic review.
Synthesis in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 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.
- Measurement of doctor wellbeing prior to the Covid pandemic: a methodological systematic review.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for capturing and measuring doctor well-being? A Delphi study.BMJ open · 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
Abstract
backgroundThere is no consensus definition of wellbeing, yet it is a key outcome for workforces.
aimsTo describe which wellbeing outcomes had been measured in doctors and which wellbeing outcome measurement instruments had been used with doctors.
methodsA methodological review of existing literature. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO and the International Bibliography of Social Science were searched for all study types, in all languages. Wellbeing outcomes were categorized as being operationalized in the aims, methods or results and by whether the outcome used to represent wellbeing included the word wellbeing, another positive concept, a pathological symptom, a pathology and were work- or doctor-specific. The outcome measurement instruments used were then categorized and the frequency collected.
resultsA total of 218 studies were included in this review. The total number of unique outcomes used to capture wellbeing in the eligible studies was 57, with 369 non-unique outcomes. Two hundred and fifty-eight of the outcomes used contained the word wellbeing, its components and other positive concepts. For the outcome 'general wellbeing' alone, 92 different measurement tools were used. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was the most frequently used measurement tool for all outcomes and was used in 34 studies.
conclusionsWellbeing has been measured heterogeneously in doctors in terms of the outcomes and the outcome measurement instruments used. In approximately one-third of the times it was measured, the best that could be achieved was an absence of pathological symptoms, as a negative concept operationalized it.
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.