A randomized, controlled study of an online intervention to promote job satisfaction and well-being among physicians

Physician Work-Personal Intersection: A Scoping Review of Terms, Definitions, and Measures

PURPOSE

A substantial body of evidence describes the multidimensional relationship between the intersection of physicians' work and personal lives and health care quality and costs, workforce sustainability, and workplace safety culture. However, there is no clear consensus on the terms, definitions, or measures used in physician work-personal intersection (WPI) research. In this scoping review, the authors aimed to describe the terms and definitions used by researchers to describe physician WPI, summarize the measurement tools used, and formulate a conceptual model of WPI that can inform future research.

METHOD

The authors searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that investigated U.S. practicing physicians' WPI and measured WPI as an outcome from January 1990 to March 2022. The authors applied thematic analysis to all WPI terms, definitions, and survey questions or prompts in the included studies to create a conceptual model of physician WPI.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 102 studies were included in the final analysis. The most commonly used WPI terms were work-life balance, work-life integration, and work-home or work-life conflict(s). There was no consistency in the definition of any terms across studies. There was heterogeneity in the way WPI was measured, and only 8 (7.8%) studies used a validated measurement tool. The authors identified 6 key driver domains of WPI: work and personal demands; colleague and institutional support and resources; personal identity, roles, health, and values; work schedule and flexibility; partner and family support; and personal and professional strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found significant variability in the terms, definitions, and measures used to study physician WPI. They offer a conceptual model of the WPI construct that can be used to more consistently study physician WPI in the future. Future work should further investigate the validity of this model and generate consensus around WPI terms, definitions, and measures.

Addressing Health Care Workers' Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Interventions and Current Resources

Background. Mental health is declining in health care workers. Objectives. To provide a comprehensive assessment of intervention literature focused on the support and treatment of mental health within the health care workforce. Search Methods. We searched online databases (e.g., Medline, PsycINFO). Selection Criteria. We selected manuscripts published before March 2022 that evaluated the target population (e.g., nurses), mental health outcomes (e.g., burnout, depression), and intervention category (e.g., mindfulness). Data Collection and Analysis. Of 5158 publications screened, 118 interventions were included. We extracted relevant statistics and information. Main Results. Twenty (17%) earned study quality ratings indicating design, analysis, and implementation strengths. Randomized controlled trials were used by 52 studies (44%). Thirty-eight percent were conducted in the United States (n = 45). Ninety (76%) reported significant changes, and 46 (39%) reported measurable effect sizes. Multiple interventions significantly reduced stress (n = 29; 24%), anxiety (n = 20; 17%), emotional exhaustion or compassion fatigue (n = 16; 14%), burnout (n = 15; 13%), and depression (n = 15; 13%). Authors' Conclusions. Targeted, well-designed mental health interventions can improve outcomes among health care workers. Public Health Implications. Targeted health care‒focused interventions to address workers' mental health could improve outcomes within this important and vulnerable workforce. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S2):S213-S226. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307556).

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

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.

Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Deficit-Oriented and Asset-Oriented Psychological Outcomes in the Workplace: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Digital psychological interventions can target deficit-oriented and asset-oriented psychological outcomes in the workplace. This review examined: (a) the effectiveness of digital interventions for psychological well-being at work, (b) associations with workplace outcomes, and (c) associations between interventions' effectiveness and their theory-base.

METHODS

six electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-experimental studies. The methodological quality of studies that used randomisation was conducted with the "Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias" tool, while the "JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist" was used for non-randomised studies. Studies' theory-base was evaluated using an adaptation of the "theory coding scheme" (TSC). Due to heterogeneity, narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

51 studies were included in a synthesis describing four clusters of digital interventions: (a) cognitive behavioural therapy, (b) stress-management interventions and workplace well-being promotion, (c) meditation training and mindfulness-based interventions, and (d) self-help interventions. Studies demonstrated a high risk of contamination effects and high attrition bias. Theory-informed interventions demonstrated greater effectiveness. Cognitive behavioural therapy demonstrated the most robust evidence for reducing depression symptoms among healthy employees. With the exception of the Headspace application, there was weak evidence for meditation training apps, while relaxation training was a key component of effective stress-management interventions.

Interventions to reduce the risk of mental health problems in health and social care workplaces: A scoping review

Work in the health and social care sector is stressful, and work-related stress increases the risk of depression, anxiety, burnout, and sleep disorders. Although interventions to reduce stress and burnout at workplaces have been developed and studied, most studies have lacked the effectiveness to improve the situation. Thus, more knowledge on interventions and analysis of their mechanisms is needed to reduce the risk of more adverse mental health problems (MHP). We conducted a scoping review to identify the relevant literature on individual and organizational interventions to improve mental health in health and social care workplaces. Data were gathered on target groups, intervention types and their effectiveness, and the outcomes of the interventions. We summarized this data thematically. The final review consisted of 76 studies. Mental health interventions primarily focused on health care workers rather than social care professionals. The interventions were mostly directed at individual workers, ignoring organizational-level interventions. They used a great variety of outcomes and questionnaires, and the questionnaires that measured the outcomes were used ambiguously. In most cases, the reported effectiveness of the studied interventions was incoherent, and many of the interventions had both statistically significant and non-significant effects. Evidence that interventions reduce the risk of work-related MHP is scarce. High-quality randomized controlled trials of interventions to promote mental health with more coherently formed outcomes are needed, especially on the organizational level. More interventions to improve social care professionals' mental health are also needed.

Are Organizational EHealth Interventions Becoming More Effective at Addressing Employee Mental Health; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Background

Mental health conditions are considered the leading cause of disability, sickness absence, and long-term work incapacity. eHealth interventions provide employees with access to psychological assistance. There has been widespread implementation and provision of eHealth interventions in the workplace as an inexpensive and anonymous way of addressing common mental disorders.

Objective

This updated review aimed to synthesize the literature on the efficacy of eHealth interventions for anxiety, depression, and stress outcomes in employee samples in organizational settings and evaluate whether their effectiveness has improved over time.

Methods

Systematic searches of relevant articles published from 2004 to July 2020 of eHealth intervention trials (app- or web-based) focusing on the mental health of employees were conducted. The quality and bias of all studies were assessed. We extracted means and SDs from publications by comparing the differences in effect sizes (Hedge g) in standardized mental health outcomes. We meta-analyzed these data using a random-effects model.

Results

We identified a tripling of the body of evidence, with 75 trials available for meta-analysis from a combined sample of 14,747 articles. eHealth interventions showed small positive effects for anxiety (Hedges g=0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.39; P<.001), depression (Hedges g=0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.34; P<.001), and stress (Hedges g=0.25, 95% CI 0.17-0.34; P<.001) in employees’ after intervention, with similar effects seen at the medium-term follow-up. However, there was evidence of no increase in the effectiveness of these interventions over the past decade.

Conclusions

This review and meta-analysis confirmed that eHealth interventions have a small positive impact on reducing mental health symptoms in employees. Disappointingly, we found no evidence that, despite the advances in technology and the enormous resources in time, research, and finance devoted to this area for over a decade, better interventions are being produced. Hopefully, these small effect sizes do not represent optimum outcomes in organizational settings.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020185859; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185859

Contribution of a positive psychology-based conceptual framework in reducing physician burnout and improving well-being: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The PERMA Model, as a positive psychology conceptual framework, has increased our understanding of the role of Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Achievements in enhancing human potentials, performance and wellbeing. We aimed to assess the utility of PERMA as a multidimensional model of positive psychology in reducing physician burnout and improving their well-being.

METHODS

Eligible studies include peer-reviewed English language studies of randomized control trials and non-randomized design. Attending physicians, residents, and fellows of any specialty in the primary, secondary, or intensive care setting comprised the study population. Eligible studies also involved positive psychology interventions designed to enhance physician well-being or reduce physician burnout. Using free text and the medical subject headings we searched CINAHL, Ovid PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar (GS) electronic bibliographic databases from 2000 until March 2020. We use keywords for a combination of three general or block of terms (Health Personnel OR Health Professionals OR Physician OR Internship and Residency OR Medical Staff Or Fellow) AND (Burnout) AND (Positive Psychology OR PERMA OR Wellbeing Intervention OR Well-being Model OR Wellbeing Theory).

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 1886 results (1804 through CINAHL, Ovid PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and 82 through GS) before duplicates were removed and 1723 after duplicates were removed. The final review included 21 studies. Studies represented eight countries, with the majority conducted in Spain (n = 3), followed by the US (n = 8), and Australia (n = 3). Except for one study that used a bio-psychosocial approach to guide the intervention, none of the other interventions in this review were based on a conceptual model, including PERMA. However, retrospectively, ten studies used strategies that resonate with the PERMA components.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of the utility of PERMA as a multidimensional model of positive psychology to guide interventions to reduce burnout and enhance well-being among physicians is missing in the literature. Nevertheless, the majority of the studies reported some level of positive outcome regarding reducing burnout or improving well-being by using a physician or a system-directed intervention. Albeit, we found more favorable outcomes in the system-directed intervention. Future studies are needed to evaluate if PERMA as a framework can be used to guide system-directed interventions in reducing physician burnout and improving their well-being.

Bottom-Up Interventions Effective in Promoting Work Engagement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Promoting work engagement is of interest to organizations across sectors due to the associated positive outcomes. This interest warrants research on the evidence of work engagement interventions. Intervention research increasingly advocates a bottom-up approach, highlighting the role of employees themselves. These workplace interventions often encourage employees to identify, develop, and make use of workplace resources. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the effectiveness and potential underlying mechanisms of these bottom-up, resource-developing interventions. Method: Systematic searches were conducted in the online databases Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Ultimate, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. Publication year range was 2000-2020. Eligibility criteria were defined using PICOS. To be eligible for the systematic review, the intervention study identified had to aim at promoting working individuals' work engagement by developing workplace resources from bottom-up. Work engagement had to be measured using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. The systematic review included one-, two-, or multiple-armed - randomized or non-randomized - intervention studies with various study designs. Further, a meta-analysis was conducted on a sub-set of the studies included in the systematic review. To be eligible for the meta-analysis, the studies had to be two- or multiple-armed and provide the information necessary to compute effect sizes. Results: Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review. The majority reported that overall work engagement increased as an effect of the intervention. The evidence regarding the sub-components of work engagement was scattered. Potential underlying mechanisms explored were intervention foci, approach, and format. Dimensions of satisfaction and performance were identified as secondary outcomes. Participant experiences were generally described as positive in most of the studies applying mixed methods. The meta-analysis showed a small but promising intervention effect on work engagement (24 studies, SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.11, with I 2=53%, indicating moderate inconsistency in the evidence). Conclusion: The synthesized evidence suggests that bottom-up, resource-developing interventions are effective in the promotion of work engagement. The meta-analysis suggests that focusing on strengths use or mobilizing ego resources and adopting a universal approach increase intervention effectiveness.

The burden of the digital environment: a systematic review on organization-directed workplace interventions to mitigate physician burnout

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review identifying workplace interventions that mitigate physician burnout related to the digital environment including health information technologies (eg, electronic health records) and decision support systems) with or without the application of advanced analytics for clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature published from January 1, 2007 to June 3, 2020 was systematically reviewed from multiple databases and hand searches. Subgroup analysis identified relevant physician burnout studies with interventions examining digital tool burden, related workflow inefficiencies, and measures of burnout, stress, or job satisfaction in all practice settings.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 4806 citations of which 81 met inclusion criteria. Thirty-eight studies reported interventions to decrease digital tool burden. Sixty-eight percent of these studies reported improvement in burnout and/or its proxy measures. Burnout was decreased by interventions that optimized technologies (primarily electronic health records), provided training, reduced documentation and task time, expanded the care team, and leveraged quality improvement processes in workflows.

DISCUSSION

The contribution of digital tools to physician burnout can be mitigated by careful examination of usability, introducing technologies to save or optimize time, and applying quality improvement to workflows.

CONCLUSION

Physician burnout is not reduced by technology implementation but can be mitigated by technology and workflow optimization, training, team expansion, and careful consideration of factors affecting burnout, including specialty, practice setting, regulatory pressures, and how physicians spend their time.

Effect of interventions for the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners-a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Clinician well-being has been recognised as an important pillar of healthcare. However, research mainly addresses mitigating the negative aspects of stress or burnout, rather than enabling positive aspects. With the added strain of a pandemic, identifying how best to maintain and support the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners (GPs) is now more important than ever.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus from 2000 to 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Intervention studies with more than 50% GPs in the sample evaluating self-reported well-being, satisfaction and related positive outcomes were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was applied.

RESULTS

We retrieved 14 792 records, 94 studies underwent full-text review. We included 19 studies in total. Six randomised controlled trials, three non-randomised, controlled trials, eight non-controlled studies of individual or organisational interventions with a total of 1141 participants. There were two quasi-experimental articles evaluating health system policy change. Quantitative and qualitative positive outcomes were extracted and analysed. Individual mindfulness interventions were the most common (k=9) with medium to large within-group (0.37-1.05) and between-group (0.5-1.5) effect sizes for mindfulness outcomes, and small-to-medium effect sizes for other positive outcomes including resilience, compassion and empathy. Studies assessing other intervention foci or other positive outcomes (including well-being, satisfaction) were of limited size and quality.

CONCLUSIONS

There is remarkably little evidence on how to improve GPs well-being beyond using mindfulness interventions, particularly for interventions addressing organisational or system factors. This was further undermined by inconsistent reporting, and overall high risk of bias. We need to conduct research in this space with the same rigour with which we approach clinical intervention studies in patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020164699.

FUNDING SOURCE

Dr Diana Naehrig is funded through the Raymond Seidler PhD scholarship.

Digital mHealth Interventions for Employees: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Workplace Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To justify the capital investment, employers require proof of benefit of digital mHealth beyond symptomatic improvement.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to identify studies investigating digital mHealth interventions for employees and their effects on workplace outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 28 eligible studies, (8023 employees) comparing digital mHealth interventions to controls. Small significant effects at postintervention in engagement (g = 0.19), and productivity (g = 0.16) were found. Sustained effects were observed, engagement (g = 0.24) and productivity (g = 0.20). There was a wide range of study heterogeneity (I2 = 16% to 94%).

CONCLUSION

In RCTs digital mHealth interventions demonstrate small, potentially sustained efficacy on employee's engagement and productivity. Similar small yet non-significant effect sizes were seen for absenteeism and presenteeism. This supports the need to find ways of enabling employers to deliver these low-cost digital mHealth interventions that can help improve employee's mental health.

Interventions to Improve Mental Health, Well-Being, Physical Health, and Lifestyle Behaviors in Physicians and Nurses: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with physicians and nurses that tested interventions designed to improve their mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search of electronic databases from 2008 to May 2018 included PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library.

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria included an RCT design, samples of physicians and/or nurses, and publication year 2008 or later with outcomes targeting mental health, well-being/resiliency, healthy lifestyle behaviors, and/or physical health. Exclusion criteria included studies with a focus on burnout without measures of mood, resiliency, mindfulness, or stress; primary focus on an area other than health promotion; and non-English papers.

DATA EXTRACTION

Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted from each study by 2 independent researchers using a standardized template created in Covidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although meta-analytic pooling across all studies was desired, a wide array of outcome measures made quantitative pooling unsuitable. Therefore, effect sizes were calculated and a mini meta-analysis was completed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (N = 2708 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy-based interventions are effective in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. Brief interventions that incorporate deep breathing and gratitude may be beneficial. Visual triggers, pedometers, and health coaching with texting increased physical activity.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare systems must promote the health and well-being of physicians and nurses with evidence-based interventions to improve population health and enhance the quality and safety of the care that is delivered.

Efficacy of a Web‐Based Tool in Reducing Burnout Among Behavioral Health Clinicians: Results From the PTSD Clinicians Exchange

Objective

Burnout is widespread among behavioral health clinicians treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among military populations. Intervention‐based strategies have shown some benefit in addressing clinician burnout. One Web‐based tool, the PTSD Clinicians Exchange, was designed to disseminate clinical best practices for the treatment of PTSD and facilitate self‐care to mitigate burnout. This study sought to determine whether this tool could reduce burnout among clinicians treating military populations.

Methods

A total of 605 behavioral health clinicians from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the community were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of the PTSD Clinicians Exchange. Clinicians were assessed on demographic characteristics, practice patterns, and organizational support with an online survey at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Burnout, secondary traumatic stress (STS), and compassion satisfaction were measured with the Professional Quality of Life Scale.

Results

At baseline, no differences were observed in mean±SD burnout scores for the intervention (19.9±5.1) and control groups (20.2±5.4). Participation in the Exchange had no effect on burnout score at 12 months; burnout scores remained stable across the study period. In a multivariable stepwise regression model, older age, lower burnout at baseline, and lower STS scores and higher compassion satisfaction scores at 12 months were significantly associated with lower burnout scores.

Conclusions

The PTSD Clinicians Exchange did not mitigate burnout among clinicians, possibly because of the content provided, the dissemination mechanism, or participants’ limited use of the Web site. These results can be used to inform and enhance future interventions.

Burnout is a prevalent issue among behavioral health clinicians treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in military populations.

This study sought to determine whether a Web‐based tool could significantly reduce burnout among clinicians treating military populations that had experienced trauma.

The PTSD Clinicians Exchange did not mitigate burnout among behavioral health clinicians.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.

Interventions to minimise doctors’ mental ill-health and its impacts on the workforce and patient care: the Care Under Pressure realist review

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.

Factors that contribute to effective online nutrition education interventions: a systematic review

CONTEXT

The use of the internet and technology as a medium for delivering online nutrition education (ONE) has increased; however, evidence-based studies exploring factors that contribute to best practices in online interventions have not emerged.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify factors that contributed to successful ONE interventions in relation to research studies published between 2009 and 2018.

DATA SOURCES

Following the PRISMA guidelines, relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) databases.

DATA EXTRACTION

Five authors screened and determined the quality of the studies using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and extracted the data from the articles.

DATA ANALYSIS

Twenty-seven studies were included: 21 studies were website-based, 3 were delivered through smartphone application, 2 were delivered as online courses, and 1 used text messages. Tailored messages/feedback, interaction between participants and investigators, identification of specific behaviors, use theory, adequate duration, and alignment between stated objectives and activities were factors that contributed to successful online interventions, while comparison bias and the lack of specific details on duration and dosage, tracking system, objective outcome measurements, and follow-up were factors that may have interfered with successful ONE interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underscore the importance of developing ONE intervention designs that utilize factors unique to online platforms for effective interventions aimed at behavior change.

Reducing burnout and anxiety among doctors: Randomized controlled trial

Prevalence studies show high levels of burnout, anxiety, fatigue and other symptoms of distress among medical doctors. However, there are very few randomized controlled trials testing interventions against these problems. This randomized controlled trial (NCT02838290; ClinicalTrials.gov, 2016) tested interventions teaching 227 doctors about the psychology of burnout, stress, coping with patient death, and managing distress, as well as giving them information about prevalence rates among doctors. Primary outcomes included burnout, anxiety, insomnia, grief, alcohol/drug use, binge eating, physical symptoms, and psychiatric morbidity. The outcomes were tested before and after the interventions with a 7-day time-lag. The intervention significantly decreased doctors' levels of burnout (e.g. emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) and anxiety. Doctors in the control group had no significant changes in these signs of distress. The intervention did not significantly reduce other health and habit-related outcomes potentially because these need a longer time-lag than 7 days. Interventions teaching doctors about the psychology of work-related distress reduce burnout and anxiety by helping doctors realize that distress is a normal, human reaction to external stressors, common in medicine, and solvable by learning about psychological coping strategies.

Interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders and suicidal ideation in physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An increased prevalence of common mental disorders and suicide has been reported among physicians worldwide. We aimed to assess which, if any, interventions are effective at reducing or preventing symptoms of common mental health disorders or suicidality in physicians.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL (database inception to March 26, 2018), reference lists of included studies, and additional sources were systematically searched and screened by two independent reviewers. We included randomised controlled studies or controlled before-after studies of interventions to reduce depression, anxiety, or suicidality in physicians, as assessed by a validated outcome measure. Both organisation-level and physician-directed interventions were considered. Our primary outcome was differences in symptoms of common mental health disorders following intervention. We used random-effects modelling for the main meta-analyses and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091646.

FINDINGS

We identified 2992 articles for screening, of which eight were included in the systematic review (n=1023 physicians) and seven in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a moderate effect in favour of the physician-directed interventions for reduction in symptoms of common mental health disorders (standardised mean difference 0·62; 95% CI 0·40-0·83; p<0·0001). Separate analyses showed physician-directed interventions resulted in reductions of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. No evidence of significant heterogeneity was found (Q=3·78; p=0·44).

INTERPRETATION

Physician-directed interventions are associated with small reductions in symptoms of common mental health disorders among physicians. Research regarding organisational interventions aimed at improving physicians' mental health via modification of the work environment is urgently needed.

FUNDING

Health Workforce Programme, Commonwealth Department of Health, Australian Government, iCare Foundation, and NSW Health.

Interventions to improve resilience in physicians who have completed training: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Resilience is a contextual phenomenon where a complex and dynamic interplay exists between individual, environmental, and socio-cultural factors. With growing interest in enhancing resilience in physicians, given their high risk for experiencing prolonged or intense stress, effective strategies are necessary to improve resilience and reduce negative outcomes including burnout. The objective of this review was to identify effective interventions to improve resilience in physicians who have completed training, working in any setting.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), and observational studies (including pilot studies) published in English, French, and Spanish that included an intervention to improve resilience in physicians who have completed training. We included studies that implemented interventions to reduce burnout, anxiety, and depression or to improve empathy to ultimately enhance resilience, rather than studies designed solely to reduce stress or trauma-induced stress. We performed a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane Library with no publication year limit. The last search was conducted on March 29, 2017. We used random effect models to calculate pooled standardized mean differences. Resilience was the primary outcome measure using validated resilience scores. Secondary outcome measures included proxy measures of resilience such as burnout, empathy, anxiety and depression. Our search strategy identified 7,579 records;74 met the criteria for full-text review. Seventeen studies were included in the final review published between 1998 and 2016 of which 9 (4 RCT, 5 observational) had physician data extractable. Interventions varied greatly regarding their approach, duration, and follow-up. Two RCTs measured resilience using validated scales; both found a significant improvement. No meta-analysis for resilience was conducted due to the presence of high clinical and methodological heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review demonstrates that there is weak evidence to support one intervention over another to improve resilience in physicians who have completed training. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from very low to low. There is a need for a consensus on the definition of resilience and how it is measured. Longer follow-up is required to ensure any intervention effects are sustained over time.