Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41899673›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026

The Use of Positive Psychology in Studies with Healthcare Professionals: Scoping Review and Implications for Professional Support.

Wanderlei Abadio de Oliveira

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and 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.

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

1 author.

Wanderlei Abadio de OliveiraGraduate Program in Psychology, School of Life Sciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas, Avenida John Boyd Dunlop, Jardim Ipaussurama, Campinas 13060904, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-8197

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Twenty-five years after the inception of Positive Psychology, its principles are still perceived to be underutilized in addressing working conditions or providing care to healthcare professionals. This article aims to synthesize evidence on the use of Positive Psychology in supporting healthcare workers. A detailed data search and analysis strategy was employed to identify scientific evidence that could answer the following guiding question: What empirical evidence is available regarding the effects of applying Positive Psychology principles or interventions to the mental health and well-being of healthcare professionals? Ten articles were selected and analyzed using the META-CORE model (Meta-level Conceptual, Operational, Reflective Evaluation). Based on the main findings of the ten reviewed studies, three themes were developed: (1) promotion of emotional and psychological well-being, gathering evidence that reflects subjective changes among healthcare professionals; (2) strengthening of personal resources and virtues through a process of self-perception and self-assessment within the work context; and (3) professional appreciation and a positive organizational climate. This scoping review contributes to strengthening the theoretical foundation of current attention to the situation of healthcare workers, aligning more clearly with the conceptual bases of Positive Psychology and its concern with mental health and the growing imperative to address contemporary challenges.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPsychology, PositiveHumansMental HealthPsychological Well-Beingburnouthealth care professionalhealthcare workermental healthpositive psychologypsychologyreview

Identifiers

PMID41899673
PMCPMC13026387

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.