Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41912946›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2026

A Review of Well-being Assessment Instruments in Hospital Medicine.

Ashwini Niranjan-Azadi, Krishna Chokshi, Kanapa Kornsawad, Ruby Marr, Andrew W Schram, James Clements, Elizabeth Murphy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 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

7 authors.

Ashwini Niranjan-AzadiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. aniranj1@jhmi.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6048-1286
Krishna ChokshiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Kanapa KornsawadDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Ruby MarrDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Andrew W SchramDepartment of Medicine, Section of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
James ClementsDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA.
Elizabeth MurphyDepartment of Medicine, Section of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although many well-being measurement instruments are used by hospitalist groups, the benefit of one instrument over others has not been established. We performed a review of well-being measurement instruments used by hospital medicine groups and developed a framework for hospitalists to choose an instrument to best evaluate their group's well-being. The review was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Psych INFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. After deleting repeat citations, a total of 330 citations were identified. Two authors read the titles, abstracts, and papers as necessary to identify papers that measured hospitalist well-being. The search identified 35 papers that used well-being instruments to identify 11 specific instruments used. Once instruments were identified, the author group reviewed the papers to determine which instrument features were important for inclusion in a summary table. The authors used the drivers of burnout as identified by Shanafelt et al. to evaluate the benefit of the instruments. Of the 11 most relevant well-being measurement instruments identified, the majority assess three or fewer categories of drivers of burnout as identified by Shanafelt et al. with only three instruments measuring five or more drivers. The review provides a practical guide for hospital medicine groups to select the most suitable instrument depending on their unique needs, including the need for a general overview of hospitalist well-being, the need to identify specific drivers, or the need to evaluate the impact of an intervention.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalHospitalistsHospital MedicineHumansPsychological Well-BeingburnoutHospitalistswell-being

Identifiers

PMID41912946
PMCPMC13304044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.