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 The outcome measurement instruments used were then categorised as published or unpublished and the frequency of use was collected.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.
Strengths and limitations of this study Strengths
This methodological review includes 218 studies on doctor wellbeing
This study utilised a novel methodology for determining eligibility and identifying outcomes for poorly defined concepts, such as wellbeing that reduces reviewer bias
Limitations
This study relates only to the methods used in studies of doctor wellbeing
The findings are based on studies published prior to the Covid-19 pandemic
It was not possible to double extract all data
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020141866
Funding Statement
Health Education England (HEE) South has provided financial support for a postgraduate student fellowship for 3 years. No grant number.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This was a systematic review, so all of the source data was from published papers. The papers are listed in the references.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Ethics approval: The University of Southampton Ethics Committee approved this review as part of a Core Outcome Set development study ERGO55747.
