ArticleBMC public health2025
Development and initial validation of Healthcare Worker Occupational Fatigue Scale: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiple exposure sources and occupational fatigue profiles among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional latent profile analysis.Frontiers in public health · 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
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare workers are at high risk of occupational fatigue. However, the lack of a specific assessment tool hinders understanding of the prevalence of fatigue and the effectiveness of interventions, posing a significant threat to physical and mental well-being.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and preliminarily validate a scale specifically designed to assess occupational fatigue among healthcare workers, thereby providing a practical tool for self-assessment and occupational health management.
methodsAn initial item pool was generated through a comprehensive review of literature related to this topic and existing fatigue scales. Content and face validity were assessed via a two-round Delphi expert consultation and a pilot survey, resulting in a preliminary scale version. Psychometric properties were evaluated using data from 475 healthcare workers recruited through convenience sampling from a tertiary Grade A general hospital in Wuhan, Hubei Province. The structural validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and Guttman Split-Half reliability. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 23.0.
resultsThe final Healthcare Worker Occupational Fatigue Scale (HWOFS) comprises 35 items across five dimensions: physical, cognitive and emotional, social, sleep-related, and auditory fatigue. The scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.973, Guttman Split-Half reliability coefficient = 0.924). Content validity was strong, with item-level content validity indices ranging from 0.867 to 1.000 and a scale-level content validity index of 0.925. The confirmatory factor analysis supported the five-factor structure, showing good model fit. All standardized factor loadings were ≥ 0.532 (all p < 0.01).
conclusionThis study demonstrated the robust reliability and validity of the newly developed HWOFS. These initial findings support the potential of HWOFS as a tool for healthcare institutions to establish fatigue warning systems, optimize human resource allocation, and develop occupational health protection policies. However, further validation in larger healthcare populations is required before broader application.
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.