ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Workplace Bullying in Healthcare Organisations: A Scoping Review of the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Workplace Bullying of Healthcare Workers.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workplace Bullying in Healthcare Organisations: A Scoping Review of the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Workplace Bullying of Healthcare Workers.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Relationship Among Workplace Bullying, Job Satisfaction, Burnout, and Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Nurses' Resilience.Nursing research and practice · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThere is an increased focus on healthcare workers' bullying due to various individual, organisational, and social factors that may elevate the risk of bullying among healthcare employees. This scoping review aims to identify knowledge gaps regarding the theorising of bullying and the prevention and management of bullying in healthcare settings.
designA scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (N = 18) involving healthcare workers (i.e., doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals) were identified through a vigorous search of ProQuest Central, PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Scopus, PsycINFO (PsycNet), and Web of Science databases. REVIEW
methodsThe included reviews were explored to identify theoretical explanations of bullying and strategies for bullying prevention and management. Thematic analysis was applied to synthesise findings.
resultsThe results indicated that workplace culture, hierarchy within healthcare organisations, inactive institutional power, and conflict are key theoretical constructs that may explain bullying among healthcare workers. Further, a comprehensive approach of individual and organisational-level factors, involving organisational policies and procedures, creating awareness to promote effective reporting of bullying, and the role of leaders and managers, was identified as critical for preventing and managing bullying.
conclusionThe scoping review emphasises the need for integrating theoretical frameworks that consider both individual and systemic aspects of bullying in healthcare organisations. Addressing these aspects can improve the effectiveness of strategies for bullying prevention and management. IMPACT: Understanding the theoretical approaches to explain bullying of healthcare employees can provide a concrete foundation for targeted interventions and organisational policies that address bullying at multiple levels, therefore improving healthcare workers' wellbeing and workplace culture. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No direct patient or public contribution was related to the scoping review.
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.