SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2026
Psychological wellbeing of healthcare professionals in regional, rural and remote emergency departments: an integrative review.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychological wellbeing of healthcare professionals in regional, rural and remote emergency departments: an integrative review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundHealthcare professionals working in regional, rural, and remote emergency departments are at increased risk of psychological distress, burnout, and emotional exhaustion due to demanding work environments and ongoing workforce pressures. Poor psychological wellbeing contributes to reduced workforce retention and may compromise the delivery of safe, equitable emergency care. However, evidence regarding their psychological wellbeing in these settings remains fragmented and lacks comprehensive synthesis.
methodsAn integrative review of global evidence on the psychological wellbeing of healthcare professionals working in regional, rural, and remote emergency departments was undertaken, focusing on challenges, contributing factors, supports, and reported outcomes. Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus) were systematically searched from inception to June 2025.
resultsSeventeen primary studies from ten countries met inclusion criteria and were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings revealed multifactorial stressors, including workplace violence, excessive workloads, professional isolation, inadequate leadership, moral distress, and limited access to training, with nurses and female staff most affected. Supports were clustered into four domains: education and professional development, peer and social support, organizational support, and individual coping strategies. Most supports were descriptively reported, with outcomes identified as both positive and negative. In only two studies, structured interventions were formally evaluated, including a self-care program and the implementation of a Serenity Room.
conclusionThe review highlights that psychological distress among healthcare professionals working in regional, rural, and remote emergency departments is influenced by context-specific, systemic, and individual factors, yet evidence-based interventions addressing these issues remain scarce. Multi-level, co-designed strategies integrating organisational safety, training, and wellbeing supports are recommended as potential approaches to support healthcare staff psychological wellbeing, workforce sustainability, and equitable, high-quality emergency care in regional, rural, and remote settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251079431.
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.