Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 25:12:e43692.
doi: 10.2196/43692.

Assessing the Well-Being at Work of Nurses and Doctors in Hospitals: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Monitoring Instruments

Affiliations

Assessing the Well-Being at Work of Nurses and Doctors in Hospitals: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Monitoring Instruments

Amber Boskma et al. JMIR Res Protoc. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. Kowitlawkul Y, Yap S, Makabe S, Chan S, Takagai J, Tam W, Nurumal M. Investigating nurses' quality of life and work-life balance statuses in Singapore. Int Nurs Rev. 2019 Mar;66(1):61–69. doi: 10.1111/inr.12457. - DOI - PubMed