The impact of Stress Management and Resilience Training (SMART) on academic physicians during the implementation of a new Health Information System: An exploratory randomized controlled trial

Addressing Burnout and Enhancing Well-Being Among Academic Physicians: A Call for Future Research and Organizational Support

Description Burnout among academic physicians, who navigate multiple roles beyond the clinical environment, is a pressing issue. However, the factors driving burnout among academic physicians are not fully understood. Prior research has revealed differences in burnout dimensions between clinical and basic science faculty, but the impact of balancing research, education, and clinical demands on academic physicians is still unclear. This knowledge gap negatively affects the clinical, translational science, research, and medical education workforces and has particular implications for minoritized and marginalized groups working in academic medical centers. Creating a culture of well-being has been vital in addressing burnout. Further research is needed to explore the unique experiences and demands of academic physicians- particularly those from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds-and to develop effective strategies to promote well-being as they balance diverse roles and contexts. This commentary highlights gaps in understanding burnout among academic physicians and proposes guidelines for future research as well as strategies to improve well-being at academic medical centers.

Correction: The impact of Stress Management and Resilience Training (SMART) on academic physicians during the implementation of a new Health Information System: An exploratory randomized controlled trial

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267240.].

Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions to Improve Health and Well-Being of Health and Social Service Workers: A Narrative Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

Health and social service workers face high levels of workload and job stressors, which can affect their health and well-being. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions that aim to improve their mental and physical health outcomes. This review summarizes the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the impact of different types of workplace interventions on various health indicators among health and social service workers. The review searched the PubMed database from its inception to December 2022 and included RCTs that reported on the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions and qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to participation in such interventions. A total of 108 RCTs were included in the review, covering job burnout (N = 56 RCTs), happiness or job satisfaction (N = 35), sickness absence (N = 18), psychosocial work stressors (N = 14), well-being (N = 13), work ability (N = 12), job performance or work engagement (N = 12), perceived general health (N = 9), and occupational injuries (N = 3). The review found that several workplace interventions were effective in improving work ability, well-being, perceived general health, work performance, and job satisfaction and in reducing psychosocial stressors, burnout, and sickness absence among healthcare workers. However, the effects were generally modest and short-lived. Some of the common barriers to participation in workplace interventions among healthcare workers were inadequate staff, high workload, time pressures, work constraints, lack of manager support, scheduling health programs outside work hours, and lack of motivation. This review suggests that workplace interventions have small short-term positive effects on health and well-being of healthcare workers. Workplace interventions should be implemented as routine programs with free work hours to encourage participation or integrate intervention activities into daily work routines.

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.

Feasibility and acceptability of the Resilient Living program among persons with stroke or brain tumor and their family caregivers

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines and research results emphasize the need for dyadic interventions targeting psychosocial outcomes such as depression, anxiety, social function, physical function, and health-related quality of life. Resilience interventions have been proposed as one strategy to influence these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this observational pilot study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the Resilient Living program among persons with stroke or brain tumor (BT) admitted for comprehensive acute inpatient rehabilitation and/or their family caregivers. A secondary aim was to gather preliminary data to assess the effects of the program on quality of life, stress, anxiety, physical function, sleep disturbance, fatigue, resilience, dyadic coping, and caregiver role overload.

METHODS

The Resilient Living program is a psychosocial intervention with a focus on building resilience skills. Feasibility and acceptability outcomes were assessed at the end of the study. Quantitative outcome measures were collected at baseline, 12 weeks, and 6 months post the intervention.

RESULTS

Eight patients and eight caregivers completed the study. The intervention was feasible with this population. Participants found the intervention useful and appreciated the flexibility of an online program; however, finding time to engage in it was challenging. Recruitment of eligible patients with acquired brain disorders and their caregivers as a dyad was challenging.

CONCLUSION

The study confirms prior research suggesting that interventions targeting resilience are feasible, but larger studies with more rigorous methods are needed to appreciate the influence of resilience interventions in persons with brain disorders and their caregivers. Further research is needed to identify the characteristics of those most likely to benefit from resilience interventions and the optimal timing of such interventions.

Correlations to and potential implications of resilience among certified pharmacy technicians

OBJECTIVES

To assess resilience among a sample of certified pharmacy technicians in the United States and evaluate associations between resilience and various personal and work-related characteristics and conditions, including coworker support and pharmacist leadership behaviors, and to assess the relationship between technicians' resilience and support from coworkers and commitment to their organization.

METHODS

This study employed the use of a self-administered questionnaire survey electronically in a cross-sectional design. The questionnaire was delivered with a response portal open for approximately 6 weeks during the spring of 2022 to a sample of 3000 technicians certified through the National Healthcareer Association. The questionnaire consisted of items comprising the Brief Resilience Scale, an adapted version of the Multifactorial Leadership Questionnaire (A-MLQ), and items measuring aspects of coworker support, future uncertainty, commitment, and turnover, in addition to demographic and practice site-related questions.

RESULTS

Usable responses were acquired from 822 respondents, who reported relatively high levels of resilience. Resilience was observed to be positively correlated with pharmacy transformative leadership behaviors measured on the A-MLQ and with coworker support and negatively correlated with future uncertainty. Respondents indicating the highest level of profession commitment reported a statistically higher level of resilience than did others. There were very few relationships observed between resilience and technicians' personal characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Immutable characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, sex, and age) played a very small role in describing resilience among pharmacy technicians. Instead, organizational characteristics of the workplace were shown to be highly associative with resilience of technicians, adding further evidence that organizations and the profession can help facilitate resilience among these important pharmacy support personnel.