ArticleBMJ public health2026
Work-life balance measurement in healthcare professionals: a scoping review protocol of available assessment instruments.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Work-life balance represents a critical factor influencing healthcare professionals' well-being, performance and quality of patient care. The healthcare sector presents unique challenges to achieving this balance due to irregular schedules, high-stress environments and emotional labour. Despite its importance, there is no consensus on how to measure work-life balance in healthcare contexts, with various instruments employing different theoretical frameworks and dimensional structures. This scoping review aims to identify and characterise validated instruments used to measure work-life balance among healthcare professionals and examine the domains/dimensions these instruments measure. Methods and analysis: The review will include studies that employ quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method assessment instruments designed to evaluate work-life balance constructs (including work-family conflict, work-home interference and professional-personal life integration) among healthcare professionals across all healthcare delivery settings. Studies published between 1980 and 2025 with no language restrictions and languages other than English will be translated using artificial intelligence software DeepL. This review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. A comprehensive three-phase search strategy will be implemented across multiple databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Global Health, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. Grey literature will be searched via the WHO website, ProQuest and Google Scholar. After duplicate removal, three independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts. Data extraction will capture detailed information about each measurement instrument, including psychometric properties, domains measured and applications in healthcare contexts. Findings will be presented using comparative tables and narrative synthesis to illustrate instrument characteristics, strengths, limitations and profession-specific applications. Ethics and dissemination: Patients and the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this scoping review. As this study is a scoping review that will synthesise data from publicly available published literature, specific ethical approval is not required. The results will be presented in articles to be submitted to scientific journals and may also be presented at scientific conferences and to public policy makers. PROSPERO registration number: Open science framework: https://osf.io/b3eyf.
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.