ArticleHRB open research2025
Conceptualising doctors' and nurses' experience of formal and informal solidarity: A Meta-Ethnography Protocol.
Article in HRB open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conceptualising doctors' and nurses' experience of formal and informal solidarity: A Meta-Ethnography Protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Negative healthcare professional experiences of work can undermine health system stability by contributing to shortages, burnout and poor retention. Research into doctors' and nurses' working conditions indicates the important role of 'solidarity' to their working experience. There is limited understanding of formal (trade unions, industrial action) and informal (peer-support, camaraderie) solidarity in shaping doctors' and nurses' working experience. This study aims to conceptualise both forms of solidarity as perceived by doctors and nurses to understand its potential on their working experience. This qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) protocol is reported following PRISMA-P recommendations. A search strategy has been developed using controlled vocabulary and free terms (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus Embase, PubMed databases), following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. English language articles will be included if they report primary, conceptually rich and contextually thick qualitative data, exploring the perceptions of informal and formal solidarity as experienced by qualified doctors and/or nurses. Its influence on the working experience, as reported by included studies, will be explored. Initial title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening of included articles, will be completed independently by two reviewers. A grey literature search will be employed, including a targeted, domain-specific Google search of doctor and nurse national unions within ten countries with highest union density, and websites of intergovernmental organisations/agencies. Piloted data extraction forms will be used to extract study characteristics and qualitative data. The CASP (Critical Appraisals Skills Programme) tool will be used to assess the quality of included studies by two reviewers, independently. Confidence in cumulative findings will be assessed using GRADE-CERQual guidelines. The QES will be reported using eMERGe guidelines and will follow the Noblit and Hare meta-ethnography approach.
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.