ArticleHealth science reports2026
Researchers' Mental Health and Quality of Life: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Although several previous studies have examined the determinants of research productivity, the conditions under which researchers achieve high performance remain poorly understood. This protocol aims to lay the groundwork for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the factors associated with researchers' mental health (RMH) and quality of life (RQoL) across public and private institutions, to provide future evidence to inform targeted policies. Methods: The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025635600) following PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines. Seven databases will be searched (CINAHL, LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycArticles) for observational studies. Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Methodological quality (GRADE), risk of bias (Downs and Black scale), and interrater reliability (Cohen's Results: This is a study protocol, therefore no results are available at this stage. The review will systematically synthesize the available evidence on the association between RQoL and RMH and, where possible, provides combined effect estimates through meta-analysis. Conclusion: The systematic review and meta-analysis will highlight challenges in the academic environment and provide evidence to inform the development of more sustainable working conditions. Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42025635600).
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.