Assessing the Well-Being at Work of Nurses and Doctors in Hospitals: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Monitoring Instruments
- PMID: 37624632
- PMCID: PMC10492165
- DOI: 10.2196/43692
Assessing the Well-Being at Work of Nurses and Doctors in Hospitals: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Monitoring Instruments
Abstract
Background: Well-being at work can be defined as "creating an environment to promote a state of contentment which allows an employee to flourish and achieve their full potential for the benefit of themselves and their organisation." In the health care context, well-being at work of nurses and doctors is important for good patient care. Moreover, it is strongly associated with individual- and organization-level consequences. Relevant literature presents models and concepts of physical, mental, and social well-being. This study uses the 6 elements of the job demands-resources (JD-R) model to interpret well-being at work (job demands, job resources, personal resources, leadership, well-being, and outcomes) as part of a Netherlands Federation of University Medical Hospitals program to find ways to improve and monitor health care professionals' well-being in Dutch hospitals. Many instruments exist to measure well-being at work in terms of population, setting, and other aspects. An overview of available and eligible instruments assessing and monitoring the well-being of nurses and doctors is currently missing.
Objective: We will perform a scoping review aiming to provide an overview of validated instruments assessing and monitoring the well-being of nurses and doctors at work.
Methods: We will perform a search of published literature in the following databases: Medline, Embase, and CINAHL. Studies will be eligible if they (1) assess well-being at work of nurses and doctors employed in hospitals; (2) describe an evaluation of an instrument or review an instrument; (3) measure well-being at work or aspects of well-being at work according to the elements of the JD-R model, and (4) were published in English from 2011 onwards. Title/abstract screening according to the eligibility criteria will be followed by full-text screening. Data extraction of included studies will be conducted by 3 reviewers independently. Reviewers will use standardized data extraction forms that include study characteristics, sample characteristics, measurement instrument details, and psychometric properties. The analysis will be descriptive. When synthesizing the data, a distinction will be made between comprehensive instruments and common instruments.
Results: This scoping review identifies instruments that have been developed and validated for monitoring the well-being of nurses and doctors at work. Studies were searched between September and December 2021 and screened between December 2021 and May 2022. A total of 739 studies were included.
Conclusions: Timely screening of well-being at work may be beneficial for individual health care workers, the organization, and patients. There is often a substantial gap and mismatch between employer perceptions of well-being and well-being interventions. It is important to develop and implement suitable interventions adapted to the needs of nurses and doctors and their health or other problems. Well-being screening should be timely to gain insight into these needs and problems. Moreover, to determine the effectiveness of well-being interventions, measurement is mandatory. The results will be critical for organizations to select a monitoring instrument that best fits the needs of employees and organizations.
International registered report identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/43692.
Keywords: assessment; doctors; health care professionals; instruments; measure; monitoring; nurses; occupational health; scale; scoping literature review; well being; well-being; well-being at work.
©Amber Boskma, Kim van der Braak, Neda Ansari, Lotty Hooft, Götz Wietasch, Arie Franx, Maarten van der Laan. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 25.08.2023.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Similar articles
-
Prioritising nurses' and doctors' health at work: a scoping review of monitoring instruments.BMJ Open. 2024 Aug 17;14(8):e079861. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079861. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 39153793 Free PMC article.
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
-
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27819974
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
[Psychometric characteristics of questionnaires designed to assess the knowledge, perceptions and practices of health care professionals with regards to alcoholic patients].Encephale. 2004 Sep-Oct;30(5):437-46. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(04)95458-9. Encephale. 2004. PMID: 15627048 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Prioritising nurses' and doctors' health at work: a scoping review of monitoring instruments.BMJ Open. 2024 Aug 17;14(8):e079861. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079861. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 39153793 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Brand S, Thompson Coon Jo, Fleming L, Carroll L, Bethel A, Wyatt K. Whole-system approaches to improving the health and wellbeing of healthcare workers: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0188418. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188418. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188418 PONE-D-17-22702 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Johnson J, Hall LH, Berzins K, Baker J, Melling K, Thompson C. Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: A narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Feb;27(1):20–32. doi: 10.1111/inm.12416. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/125589/ - DOI - PubMed
-
- Prudenzi A, D Graham Christopher, Flaxman PE, O'Connor Daryl B. Wellbeing, burnout, and safe practice among healthcare professionals: predictive influences of mindfulness, values, and self-compassion. Psychol Health Med. 2022 Jun;27(5):1130–1143. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2021.1898651. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/84670/ - DOI - PubMed
-
- Wong KP, Lee FCH, Teh P, Chan AHS. The interplay of socioecological determinants of work-life balance, subjective wellbeing and employee wellbeing. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 24;18(9):4525. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094525. https://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=ijerph18094525 ijerph18094525 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous