ArticleIndustrial psychiatry journal
Second Victim Syndrome in Indian Surgeons - A Cross Sectional Analytical Study.
Article in Industrial psychiatry journal. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Second victim syndrome (SVS) is an entity known to corrode healthcare providers from within. To analyze the interaction of different factors of SVS, an online questionnaire (based on the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool - Revised) was used for a cross-sectional survey. Aim: To know the prevalence and the psychological impact of SVS among Indian surgeons. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional online questionnaire survey-based analytical study collected responses of 200 Indian Surgeons of different types and levels of speciality. Inputs on all dimensions of SVS, namely, psychological distress, physical distress, colleague support, supervisor support, institutional support and professional self-efficacy, and outcome parameters, that is, turnover intentions and absenteeism, were collected and analyzed. Results: The SVS prevalence in the sample was 18.5%, the highest among specialists at 24.3%. Affected surgeons experienced significant psychological and physical distress and reported less peer and institutional support, lower self-efficacy, more intent to leave, higher absenteeism, and reduced resilience. Regression analyses identified distress as a predictor for turnover intentions and absenteeism, with SVS severity similar across all specialities and levels. Conclusions: SVS can have significant psychological effects, with its aftermath potentially manifesting as somatic symptoms, self-doubt, insecurity, and both mental and physical disengagement from the workplace. This may contribute to considerations of leaving the profession. There is a clear need for comprehensive institutional support systems to address these challenges and enhance professional outcomes.
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.