1
|
Tamminga SJ, Emal LM, Boschman JS, Levasseur A, Thota A, Ruotsalainen JH, Schelvis RM, Nieuwenhuijsen K, van der Molen HF. Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD002892. [PMID: 37169364 PMCID: PMC10175042 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd002892.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour); 2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise); 3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above. The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended). MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised. The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants. Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention. A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sietske J Tamminga
- Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Lima M Emal
- Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Julitta S Boschman
- Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Alice Levasseur
- Faculté des sciences de l'éducation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Jani H Ruotsalainen
- Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Roosmarijn Mc Schelvis
- Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Body@Work, Research Center on Work, Health and Technology, TNO/VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Karen Nieuwenhuijsen
- Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Henk F van der Molen
- Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Carrieri D, Pearson M, Mattick K, Papoutsi C, Briscoe S, Wong G, Jackson M. Interventions to minimise doctors’ mental ill-health and its impacts on the workforce and patient care: the Care Under Pressure realist review. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2020. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr08190] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
The growing incidence of mental ill-health in health professionals, including doctors, is a global concern. Although a large body of literature exists on interventions that offer support, advice and/or treatment to sick doctors, it has not yet been synthesised in a way that takes account of the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions, and the many dimensions (e.g. individual, organisational, sociocultural) of the problem.
Objectives
Our aim was to improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts mental health services and support interventions can be designed to minimise the incidence of doctors’ mental ill-health. The objectives were to review interventions to tackle doctors’ mental ill-health and its impact on the clinical workforce and patient care, drawing on diverse literature sources and engaging iteratively with diverse stakeholder perspectives to produce actionable theory; and recommendations that support the tailoring, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of contextually sensitive strategies to tackle mental ill-health and its impacts.
Design
Realist literature review consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and reporting standards.
Data sources
Bibliographic database searches were developed and conducted using MEDLINE (1946 to November week 4 2017), MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-indexed Citations (1946 to 6 December 2017) and PsycINFO (1806 to November week 2 2017) (all via Ovid) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (1987 to 6 December 2017) (via ProQuest) on 6 December 2017. Further UK-based studies were identified by forwards and author citation searches, manual backwards citation searching and hand-searching relevant journal websites.
Review methods
We included all studies that focused on mental ill-health; all study designs; all health-care settings; all studies that included medical doctors/medical students; descriptions of interventions or resources that focus on improving mental ill-health and minimising its impacts; all mental health outcome measures, including absenteeism (doctors taking short-/long-term sick leave); presenteeism (doctors working despite being unwell); and workforce retention (doctors leaving the profession temporarily/permanently). Data were extracted from included articles and the data set was subjected to realist analysis to identify context–mechanism–outcome configurations.
Results
A total of 179 out of 3069 records were included. Most were from the USA (45%) and had been published since 2009 (74%). More included articles focused on structural-level interventions (33%) than individual-level interventions (21%), but most articles (46%) considered both levels. Most interventions focused on prevention, rather than treatment/screening, and most studies referred to doctors/physicians in general, rather than to specific specialties or career stages. Nineteen per cent of the included sources provided cost information and none reported a health economic analysis. The 19 context–mechanism–outcome configurations demonstrated that doctors were more likely to experience mental ill-health when they felt isolated or unable to do their job, and when they feared repercussions of help-seeking. Healthy staff were necessary for excellent patient care. Interventions emphasising relationships and belonging were more likely to promote well-being. Interventions creating a people-focused working culture, balancing positive/negative performance and acknowledging positive/negative aspects of a medical career helped doctors to thrive. The way that interventions were implemented seemed critically important. Doctors needed to have confidence in an intervention for the intervention to be effective.
Limitations
Variable quality of included literature; limited UK-based studies.
Future work
Use this evidence synthesis to refine, implement and evaluate interventions.
Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069870.
Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Carrieri
- College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Mark Pearson
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Karen Mattick
- College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Chrysanthi Papoutsi
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Briscoe
- Exeter HSDR Evidence Synthesis Centre, Institute of Health Research, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Geoff Wong
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mark Jackson
- Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|