Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41899706›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026

Healthcare Professionals' Subjective Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal of Conceptual Models, Measurement Instruments, and Associated Factors.

Iluta Skrūzkalne, Evija Nagle, Otto Andersen, Jeļena Perevozčikova, Luule Sakkeus, Antanas Kairys, Ingūna Griškēviča, Silva Seņkāne, Andrejs Ivanovs, Ieva Reine

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Iluta SkrūzkalneStatistics Unit, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0009-0004-1763-4218
Evija NagleStatistics Unit, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
Otto AndersenSchool of Business and Law, University of Agder, Gimlemoen 25, 4630 Kristiansand, Norway.
Jeļena PerevozčikovaStatistics Unit, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.
Luule SakkeusDepartment of Demography, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0003-3785-183X
Antanas KairysFaculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, Vilnius University, Universiteto g. 9, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0001-8082-8016
Ingūna GriškēvičaDepartment of Health Psychology and Pedagogy, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0003-2387-9284
Silva SeņkāneStatistics Unit, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-1291-8412
Andrejs IvanovsStatistics Unit, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-7376-3776
Ieva ReineStatistics Unit, Rīga Stradiņš University, Dzirciema iela 16, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-1643-0983

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The well-being of healthcare professionals (HCPs) is widely recognised as a critical construct related to workforce sustainability, patient safety, and healthcare system performance; however, research in this area remains conceptually fragmented. This systematic review identifies and critically analyses conceptual models, assessment instruments, and factors associated with HCPs' subjective well-being. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across six databases covering 2014 to 2024, focusing on quantitative empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria, and the methodological quality of measurement instruments was evaluated with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist in validation-focused studies. Of the 7838 records initially identified, 48 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three primary thematic areas emerged: (1) conceptual models framing subjective well-being, (2) measurement instruments assessing subjective well-being, and (3) factors associated with subjective well-being among HCPs. Frequently applied conceptual frameworks included the job demands-resources model, Maslach burnout theory, and WHOQOL-related approaches. Commonly used instruments comprised the WHO-5, Maslach Burnout Inventory, and Mini-Z. In validation-focused studies assessed using COSMIN criteria, internal consistency and aspects of construct validity were generally reported as acceptable; however, reporting across measurement property domains was variable. Factors examined in relation to subjective well-being included workload, emotional exhaustion, social support, autonomy, and work-life balance. Overall, the reviewed literature demonstrates substantial variability in conceptual and methodological approaches and frequently focuses on single dimensions of well-being. These findings highlight the potential value of developing integrated, sector-specific frameworks to inform future measurement development and research in this field.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelBurnout, ProfessionalHumansModels, TheoreticalPsychological Well-Beingconceptual modelshealthcare professionalsinfluencing factorsmeasurement instrumentssubjective well-beingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41899706
PMCPMC13026122

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.