ObjectivesTo systematically review the available literature on physicians’ and dentists’ experiences influencing job motivation, job satisfaction, burnout, well-being and symptoms of depression as indicators of job morale in low-income and middle-income countries.DesignThe review was reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for studies evaluating outcomes of interest using qualitative methods. The framework method was used to analyse and integrate review findings.Data sourcesA primary search of electronic databases was performed by using a combination of search terms related to the following areas of interest: ‘morale’, ‘physicians and dentists’ and ‘low-income and middle-income countries’. A secondary search of the grey literature was conducted in addition to checking the reference list of included studies and review papers.ResultsTen papers representing 10 different studies and involving 581 participants across seven low-income and middle-income countries met the inclusion criteria for the review. However, none of the studies focused on dentists’ experiences was included. An analytical framework including four main categories was developed: work environment (physical and social), rewards (financial, non-financial and social respect), work content (workload, nature of work, job security/stability and safety), managerial context (staffing levels, protocols and guidelines consistency and political interference). The job morale of physicians working in low-income and middle-income countries was mainly influenced by negative experiences. Increasing salaries, offering opportunities for career and professional development, improving the physical and social working environment, implementing clear professional guidelines and protocols and tackling healthcare staff shortage may influence physicians’ job morale positively.ConclusionsThere were a limited number of studies and a great degree of heterogeneity of evidence. Further research is recommended to assist in scrutinising context-specific issues and ways of addressing them to maximise their utility.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017082579.

Aims The DIALOG scale has been implemented as a routine patient outcome and experience measure (PROM/PREM) in a mental health trust in East London since 2017. The resulting healthcare dataset was used to estimate satisfaction with life and treatment aspects over time and factors associated with it. Methods Variables available from the Trust were DIALOG items, service level, clinical and basic demographic data. Data was extracted in February 2019. Data is described using a range of descriptive statistics and looking at the subgroups: treatment stage, diagnosis, service type. Predictors for average DIALOG scores across patients was explored with clustered linear regression models. A fixed effect model was chosen to estimate the impact of clinical and service related variables on patient’s average DIALOG scores over time. Sensitivity analyses with the whole data set and complete cases were carried out. Results Of the original 18,481 DIALOG records 12, 592 were kept after data cleaning (5646 patients). The average DIALOG score was 4.8 (SD 1.0) on the 7-point scale. Average satisfaction with life aspects (PROM) was 4.65 (SD 1.1) and with treatment aspects (PREM) was 5.25 (SD 1.17). Across all 11 items, “job situation” scored lowest (mean 4.05) and “meetings with professionals” highest (mean 5.5). Satisfaction for all items increased over time (average increase 0.47). The largest increase was in “mental health” (0.94) and the smallest in “family relationships” (0.34). Conclusions Patients in mental healthcare services were “fairly satisfied” in both life and treatment aspects with improvements seen over time. These results will act as a benchmark for clinical services currently implementing DIALOG across the UK and inform local service developments.

IntroductionThe NICE clinical guidelines on psychosocial interventions for the treatment of schizophrenia and psychosis in adults are based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may not be studies with a pragmatic design, leading to uncertainty on applicability or recommendations to everyday clinical practice.AimTo assess the level of pragmatism of the evidence used to develop the NICE guideline for psychosocial interventions in psychoses.Material and methodsWe conducted a systematic and critical appraisal of RCTs used to develop the ‘psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions’ section of the NICE guideline on the treatment and management of psychosis and schizophrenia in adults, published in 2014. For each study we assessed pragmatism using the pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The mean score of PRECIS-2, averaging across nine domains, was calculated to describe the level of pragmatism of each individual study.ResultsA total of 143 studies were included in the analysis. Based on the PRECIS-2 tool, 16.8% were explanatory, 33.6% pragmatic, and 49.7% were rated in an intermediate category. Compared to explanatory studies, pragmatic studies showed a lower risk of bias. Additionally, pragmatism did not significantly improve over time, and no associations were found between pragmatism and a number of trial characteristics. However, studies with a UK leading investigator had the highest mean score of pragmatism. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), art therapy, family intervention, psychoeducation, and adherence therapy, showed the higher average pragmatism scores.ConclusionsTwo third of studies used to produce NICE recommendations on psychosocial interventions for the treatment of schizophrenia and psychosis in adults are based on studies that did not employ a pragmatic design.