Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41710343›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

A qualitative investigation of social service workers' experiences with compassion training in the workplace.

Anneli O Borgen, Eline L Håkedal, Nanja H Hansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anneli O Borgen *Psykiatrien Vest Region Sjælland, Holbæk, Denmark.
Eline L Håkedal *Socialcenter Lillebælt i Region Syd Danmark, Fredericia, Denmark.
Nanja H HansenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Danish Center for Mindfulness, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to qualitatively explore the experiences of professionals in social services who completed a compassion training intervention in their workplace. The focus was on understanding how contextual factors influence the implementation of such an intervention. Additionally, the study sought to investigate how the professionals perceive and apply compassion and compassion-related skills after completing the training, with the aim of gaining insights into how they incorporate the competencies from the program into their daily lives both at the micro (personal experience) and macro (implementational barriers) level. Methods: Seven participants (four pedagogical staff workers and three social workers) from a municipal institution in Denmark, who had completed the compassion training in their workplace, were recruited and semi-structured interviews conducted. The data was analyzed using Thematic Analysis. Results: The analysis identified four themes relating to the acceptability of compassion training including: (1) Challenges related to meditation; (2) Follow-up and maintenance; (3) Vulnerability, feelings of psychological safety, and inter-connectedness; (4) and Task overload as a challenge to the implementation of compassion training. The professionals' understanding and use of (self)compassion were grouped into three themes: (1) Boundaries, (2) Mindfulness, and (3) Self-care as a form of self-compassion. Conclusion: The study emphasizes the importance of a supportive environment, managing task overload, and organizational commitment to the implementation of compassion training programs aimed at social care workers.

Indexed as

acceptabilitychallengescompassion trainingimplementationmindfulnesssocial care work

Identifiers

PMID41710343
PMCPMC12910161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.