Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41993832›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Development and validation of a flow state scale for healthcare professionals.

Yunxia Zhong, Yuqing Zhang, Xiaohan Sun, Jun Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

4 authors.

Yunxia ZhongSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yuqing ZhangEducation Department, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaohan SunSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jun LiSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Nowadays, healthcare workers generally face mental health risks such as occupational burnout, depression, and low job satisfaction, which negatively affect both their physical and mental well-being as well as organizational performance. Flow, as a positive internal motivational state, may help address these challenges. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate a flow state scale suitable for healthcare professionals offering a scientific and useful instrument for evaluating flow experience among healthcare workers. Methods: An initial item pool was generated based on a literature review, existing scales, and the specific nature of healthcare work. The items were then translated and back-translated by bilingual experts (Chinese and English) to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence. We refined the items through a two-round Delphi expert consultation ( Results: The flow state scale for healthcare professionals includes 15 items measuring four dimensions of the flow experience: concentration and directional feedback, intrinsic empowerment and control, transformation of time, and loss of self-consciousness. The scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's Conclusion: The flow state scale for healthcare professionals has good reliability and validity. It can serve as an effective tool for assessing the flow state among healthcare professionals and provides a valuable reference for healthcare institutions in management practices such as personnel motivation, burnout intervention, performance management, and further service quality improvement.

Indexed as

flowhealthcare professionalsreliabilityscalevalidity

Identifiers

PMID41993832
PMCPMC13079051

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.