Impact of intrawork rest breaks on doctors' performance and well-being: systematic review
Impact of intrawork rest breaks on doctors' performance and well-being: systematic review
Objectives: to summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors’ well-being and/or performance at work.
Design: systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelines
Data sources: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021.
Eligibility criteria: no restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication.
Data extraction and analysis: methodological quality was appraised using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively.
Results: database searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies.
Discussion: using existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible.
PROSPERO registration number:
CRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.
Humans, Cross-Sectional Studies, Qualitative Research, Physicians, Bias, Checklist
e062469
O'Neill, Aimee
9b231a96-47b7-488d-90df-4d9ceef2fd98
Baldwin, David
1beaa192-0ef1-4914-897a-3a49fc2ed15e
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Sinclair, Julia
be3e54d5-c6da-4950-b0ba-3cb8cdcab13c
14 December 2022
O'Neill, Aimee
9b231a96-47b7-488d-90df-4d9ceef2fd98
Baldwin, David
1beaa192-0ef1-4914-897a-3a49fc2ed15e
Cortese, Samuele
53d4bf2c-4e0e-4c77-9385-218350560fdb
Sinclair, Julia
be3e54d5-c6da-4950-b0ba-3cb8cdcab13c
O'Neill, Aimee, Baldwin, David, Cortese, Samuele and Sinclair, Julia
(2022)
Impact of intrawork rest breaks on doctors' performance and well-being: systematic review.
BMJ Open, 12 (12), .
(doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062469).
Abstract
Objectives: to summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors’ well-being and/or performance at work.
Design: systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelines
Data sources: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021.
Eligibility criteria: no restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication.
Data extraction and analysis: methodological quality was appraised using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively.
Results: database searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies.
Discussion: using existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible.
PROSPERO registration number:
CRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.
Text
e062469.full
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 16 November 2022
Published date: 14 December 2022
Keywords:
Humans, Cross-Sectional Studies, Qualitative Research, Physicians, Bias, Checklist
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 477153
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/477153
ISSN: 2044-6055
PURE UUID: 7cf57b01-f9dc-4127-9d62-80edc32089dd
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 May 2023 16:41
Last modified: 02 May 2024 01:55
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Aimee O'Neill
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics