The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Measurement of doctor wellbeing prior to the Covid pandemic: a methodological systematic review

Measurement of doctor wellbeing prior to the Covid pandemic: a methodological systematic review
Measurement of doctor wellbeing prior to the Covid pandemic: a methodological systematic review
Objectives: attention has been focused on health professional during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, but relatively little is known about wellbeing before the pandemic struck. We therefore wised to describe which wellbeing outcomes had been measured in doctors and which wellbeing outcome measurement instruments had been used with doctors, prior to 2020.

Design: a methodological review of existing literature.

Setting: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and the International Bibliography of Social Science were searched for all study types, in all languages.

Outcome measures: wellbeing outcomes were categorised as being defined/operationalised in the aims, the methods or the results,Error! Reference source not found. and by whether the outcome used to represent wellbeing included the word wellbeing, another positive concept, a pathological symptom, a pathology, and were work-specific or doctor-specific. The outcome measurement instruments used were then categorised as published or unpublished and the frequency of use was collected.

Results: a total of 218 studies were included in this review. The majority of studies were not interventional (83.9%). The total number of unique outcomes used to capture wellbeing in the eligible studies was 57, with 369 non-unique outcomes. The percentage of outcomes used that contained the word wellbeing, its components and other positive concepts, was 69.9% (258/369). The percentage of negative concept use such as negative work context outcomes, symptoms of pathologies, or pathologies, was 30.1% (111/369). For the outcome “general wellbeing” alone, 92 different measurement tools were used. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was the most frequently used measurement tool for all outcomes, used in 16.3% of studies.

Conclusions: wellbeing has been measured heterogeneously in doctors in terms of the outcomes and the outcome measurement instruments used. In approximately one-third of the times it was measured, the best that could be achieved was an absence of pathological symptoms, as a negative concept was used to operationalise it.
medRxiv
Simons, G.
a619e51c-448c-4f30-b860-e31bd4c02ebf
Opalinski, D.
2a52bd5f-94d4-4802-90cc-89053b40db1a
Jenkins, J.
96fdfbbd-a40b-438d-8cfc-f8f5b2cb8159
Boxley, E.
68c07bce-e1a6-4837-895e-43ff7c6fabcf
Baldwin, D.S.
1beaa192-0ef1-4914-897a-3a49fc2ed15e
Simons, G.
a619e51c-448c-4f30-b860-e31bd4c02ebf
Opalinski, D.
2a52bd5f-94d4-4802-90cc-89053b40db1a
Jenkins, J.
96fdfbbd-a40b-438d-8cfc-f8f5b2cb8159
Boxley, E.
68c07bce-e1a6-4837-895e-43ff7c6fabcf
Baldwin, D.S.
1beaa192-0ef1-4914-897a-3a49fc2ed15e

[Unknown type: UNSPECIFIED]

Record type: UNSPECIFIED

Abstract

Objectives: attention has been focused on health professional during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, but relatively little is known about wellbeing before the pandemic struck. We therefore wised to describe which wellbeing outcomes had been measured in doctors and which wellbeing outcome measurement instruments had been used with doctors, prior to 2020.

Design: a methodological review of existing literature.

Setting: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and the International Bibliography of Social Science were searched for all study types, in all languages.

Outcome measures: wellbeing outcomes were categorised as being defined/operationalised in the aims, the methods or the results,Error! Reference source not found. and by whether the outcome used to represent wellbeing included the word wellbeing, another positive concept, a pathological symptom, a pathology, and were work-specific or doctor-specific. The outcome measurement instruments used were then categorised as published or unpublished and the frequency of use was collected.

Results: a total of 218 studies were included in this review. The majority of studies were not interventional (83.9%). The total number of unique outcomes used to capture wellbeing in the eligible studies was 57, with 369 non-unique outcomes. The percentage of outcomes used that contained the word wellbeing, its components and other positive concepts, was 69.9% (258/369). The percentage of negative concept use such as negative work context outcomes, symptoms of pathologies, or pathologies, was 30.1% (111/369). For the outcome “general wellbeing” alone, 92 different measurement tools were used. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was the most frequently used measurement tool for all outcomes, used in 16.3% of studies.

Conclusions: wellbeing has been measured heterogeneously in doctors in terms of the outcomes and the outcome measurement instruments used. In approximately one-third of the times it was measured, the best that could be achieved was an absence of pathological symptoms, as a negative concept was used to operationalise it.

Text
2024.10.03.24314759v1.full - Author's Original
Download (573kB)

More information

Published date: 4 October 2024

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 503177
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/503177
PURE UUID: 7bb9087d-578d-40ab-a335-cf5b99d1111d
ORCID for D.S. Baldwin: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3343-0907

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Jul 2025 16:37
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 01:39

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: G. Simons
Author: D. Opalinski
Author: J. Jenkins
Author: E. Boxley
Author: D.S. Baldwin ORCID iD

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×