IMPORTANCE: Burnout is prevalent in physicians and can have a negative influence on performance, career continuation and patient care. Existing evidence does not allow clear recommendations for the management of burnout in physicians. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce burnout in physicians. We also examined whether different types of interventions (physician-directed or organization-directed interventions), physician characteristics (length of experience) and healthcare setting characteristics (primary or secondary care) were associated with improved effects. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, and Central, were searched from inception to May 2016. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and controlled before-after studies of interventions targeting burnout in physicians. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The main meta-analysis was followed by a number of pre-specified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. All analyses were performed using random-effects models and heterogeneity was quantified using I 2. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The core outcome was burnout scores focused on emotional exhaustion, reported as standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Twenty independent comparisons from 19 studies were included in the metaanalysis (n=1,550 physicians). Interventions were associated with small significant reductions in burnout (SMD=-0.29, 95% CI=-0.42 to-0.16; equal to a drop of 3-points on the emotional exhaustion domain of the Maslach Burnout Inventory above change in the controls). Subgroup analyses suggested significantly improved effects for organization-5 directed interventions (SMD=-0.45, 95% CI=-0.62 to-0.28) compared to physician-directed interventions (SMD=-0.18, 95% CI=-0.32 to-0.03). Interventions delivered in experienced physicians and in primary care were associated with higher effects compared to interventions delivered in inexperienced physicians and in secondary care, but these differences were not significant. The results were not influenced by the risk of bias ratings. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this meta-analysis suggests that current intervention programs for burnout in physicians are associated with small benefits which may be boosted by adoption of organization-directed approaches. This finding provides support for the view that burnout is a problem of the whole healthcare organization, rather than individuals.

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) pandemic has had far‐reaching effects upon lives, healthcare systems and society. Some who had an apparently 'mild' COVID‐19 infection continue to suffer from persistent symptoms, including chest pain, breathlessness, fatigue, cognitive impairment, paraesthesia, muscle and joint pains. This has been labelled 'long COVID'. This paper reports the experiences of doctors with long COVID. Methods A qualitative study; interviews with doctors experiencing persistent symptoms were conducted by telephone or video call. Interviews were transcribed and analysis conducted using an inductive and thematic approach. Results Thirteen doctors participated. The following themes are reported: making sense of symptoms, feeling let down, using medical knowledge and connections, wanting to help and be helped, combining patient and professional identity. Experiencing long COVID can be transformative: many expressed hope that good would come of their experiences. Distress related to feelings of being ‘let down’ and the hard work of trying to access care. Participants highlighted that they felt better able to care for, and empathize with, patients with chronic conditions, particularly where symptoms are unexplained. Conclusions The study adds to the literature on the experiences of doctors as patients, in particular where evidence is emerging and the patient has to take the lead in finding solutions to their problems and accessing their own care. Patient and Public contribution The study was developed with experts by experience (including co‐authors HA and TAB) who contributed to the protocol and ethics application, and commented on analysis and implications. All participants were given the opportunity to comment on findings.

Background The contribution of involving patients and public in health research is widely reported, particularly within mental health research. Less is written about such contributions to doctoral research. The research focus of this doctoral research, self‐harm in older adults, was put forward by a Patient Public Involvement Engagement (PPIE) group, who contributed to its development. Aims Critically reflect on the process, potential impact and identify challenges and opportunities in involving robust PPIE in a doctoral study. Methods Three PPIE members contributed to a systematic review (SR) and a qualitative study through a series of four workshops to meet the aims of the study. PPIE contributed to developing the SR review questions, protocol, data analysis and dissemination of findings. For the qualitative study, they helped develop research questions, protocol, public‐facing documentation, recruitment strategies and data analysis. Involvement followed the GRIPP2‐SF reporting checklist. Results PPIE enhanced methodological rigour, data analysis, interpretation and dissemination of findings. Challenges included lack of ethical guidance, time‐related pressures and ensuring support for PPIE members. These were successfully managed through ongoing dialogue and regular communication. Conclusions PPIE can enhance the quality and depth of doctoral research, as lived experiences shared by PPIE members add to research's components. Exposing early‐career researchers to PPIE can build research cultures sensitive to PPIE's potential contribution and develop the expertise needed to avoid tokenistic involvement. Capturing lay perspectives is essential in mental health research to ensure research findings are accessible and that findings inform clinical practice. However, clear guidance on the ethical dimensions to PPIE is needed.