ReviewBMJ open2026
Building a data-driven evaluation framework of physician wellness initiatives: a rapid review.
Review in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhile there exist many individual and organisation-level initiatives aimed at reducing physician burnout and promoting wellness, there are no comprehensive frameworks or guidelines for evaluating initiatives targeted at physicians. To address this gap, we conducted a rapid review to understand the current state of initiative evaluation in this field and develop an evaluation framework for initiatives aimed at physician burnout and wellness.
designA rapid review based on the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo were searched from database inception to 2 May 2024 for concepts related to physicians, wellness initiatives and burnout, and organisational efforts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies with initiatives aimed at physician burnout, wellness or experience; targeted physicians, residents, fellows and/or physician faculty; were evaluated in some format; and took place within healthcare settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data according to a standard template. For each study, we noted information related to the type of wellness initiative, evaluation approach, components measured in evaluations ('evaluation indicators') and gaps in evaluation. The same reviewers analysed the data quantitatively and thematically. Findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.
resultsThe database search yielded a total of 3786 references, of which 105 were included based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Various types of wellness initiatives (eg, mindfulness, peer support programmes, communities of practice) were delivered multimodally, or via curriculums and workshops, among other formats. Common evaluation approaches included surveys (95%, n=100/105) and interviews or focus groups (17%, n=18/105). Evaluation indicators spanned five categories: impacts (94.3%, n=99/105), participants' reactions (65.7%, n=69/105), perspective and behaviour changes (46.7%, n=49/105), implementation (45.7%, n=48/105) and continuous improvement (6.7%, n=7/105). Evaluation gaps included limited responses from participants, failure to capture certain indicators (eg, physician turnover) and limited longitudinal measures.
conclusionsBased on the findings and existing models, we developed a physician-focused evaluation framework, constituting two domains: implementation and impacts. This framework can enable organisations to better understand, assess and improve initiatives aimed at physician well-being, which can have positive impacts on patient care and the healthcare system.
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.