ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Use of Expressive Writing in Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals are exposed to high emotional demands, including repeated contact with suffering, death, moral distress, and organizational pressure. These factors are associated with psychological distress, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress. Expressive Writing (EW) has been proposed as a psychological intervention, but evidence of its effectiveness among healthcare professionals remains heterogeneous.
objectivesTo examine the effects of EW on psychological health, psychophysical well-being, and professional satisfaction among healthcare professionals.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, CENRAL, CENTRAL Scopus, Embase, and PsycINFO from database inception to January 2025. Quantitative studies involving healthcare professionals and evaluating structured expressive writing interventions were considered for inclusion, including randomized and non-randomized, controlled and uncontrolled designs. Studies reporting psychological, psychophysical, or work-related outcomes were eligible. Only full-text articles published in English or Italian were considered. The review protocol was registered and archived in the Open Science Framework. Methodological quality was assessed using CASP checklists, the RoB 2 tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsSeven studies published between 2017 and 2023 were included. EW interventions were associated with reductions in psychological distress, particularly perceived stress, depressive symptoms, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Findings regarding burnout and compassion fatigue were mixed. Organizational and job-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, showed limited and heterogeneous improvements. No consistent effects were observed for resilience or social support. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was generally good.
conclusionsEW appears to be a promising, low-cost intervention for reducing psychological distress among healthcare professionals. However, heterogeneity in study designs, intervention protocols, and outcome measures limits the strength of the evidence. Further high-quality, controlled studies using standardized EW protocols are needed.
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.