SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025
Factors associated with suicidal ideation in healthcare personnel: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This paper investigates suicidal ideation among healthcare professionals, a growing concern that affects their mental well-being and the quality of healthcare delivery. The study aims to identify key risk factors, such as work-related stress, exposure to death, and lack of institutional support, that contribute to suicidal ideation in this population. It also explores protective factors, including resilience, social support, and institutional resources, that may mitigate these risks. Method: A systematic review was conducted on studies published between 2020 and 2024. The literature search spanned databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Dialnet, and Scielo. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines to ensure thoroughness and transparency in study selection. To assess the quality of the included studies, standardized tools like the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were applied. Results: The review identified that the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified factors leading to suicidal ideation among healthcare professionals, with a notable increase in prevalence during this period. Identified risk factors included high levels of occupational stress, frequent exposure to death and suffering, and insufficient institutional support. Conversely, protective factors like resilience, social support, and access to institutional resources were found to reduce susceptibility to suicidal ideation. Conclusion: The findings highlight an urgent need for comprehensive prevention strategies and support programs targeting healthcare personnel. Recommendations for interventions span individual, organizational, and public policy levels. Enhancing resilience and providing institutional support could be crucial steps in reducing the incidence of suicidal ideation in this vulnerable group, ultimately improving both their mental health and the quality of healthcare services.
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.