ObjectiveOne potential barrier to optimal healthcare may be provider burnout or occupational-related stress in the workplace. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review to identify the predictors of burnout among US. healthcare providers.DesignSystematic review using in-depth critical appraisal to assess risk of bias and present the quality of evidence in synthesised results from the prognostic studies.Data sourcesWe searched 11 databases, registries, existing reviews and contacted experts through 4 October 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all studies evaluating potential predictors and documenting the presence and absence of associations with burnout assessed as a multidimensional construct. We excluded studies that relied solely on a single continuous subscale of burnout. Data were abstracted from eligible studies and checked for accuracy by a content expert and a methodologist.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened citations and full-text publications using predetermined eligibility criteria.ResultsThe 141 identified studies evaluated a range of burnout predictors. Findings for demographic characteristics were conflicting or show no association. Workplace factors, such as workload, work/life balance, job autonomy and perceived support from leadership, had stronger associations with risk for burnout. Mental health factors, such as anxiety, and physical health risks may increase the risk, although the direction of these associations is unclear as few prospective studies exist to address this question. Factors such as social support appear to have a protective effect.ConclusionWe found the most evidence for workplace, mental health and psychosocial factors in predicting burnout but limited evidence for other potential predictors. However, more prospective studies are needed to improve our understanding about how to prevent provider burnout.PROSPERO registration numberCRD4202014836.

Introduction Military personnel must prepare for and respond to life-threatening crises on a daily basis. This lifestyle places stress on personnel, and particularly so on deployed service members who are isolated from support systems and other resources. As part of a larger systematic review on the acceptability, efficacy, and comparative effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent, identify, and manage stress reactions, we assessed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) outcomes. Materials and Methods We searched the electronic databases PsycINFO, PubMed, PTSDPubs, the Defense Technical Information Center, and Cochrane Central, as well as bibliographies of existing systematic reviews, to identify English-language studies evaluating the efficacy or comparative effectiveness of stress control interventions published since 1990. Controlled trials and cohort comparisons of interventions with military, law enforcement, and first responders were included. Two independent reviewers screened literature using predetermined eligibility criteria. Researchers individually abstracted study-level information and outcome data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; data were reviewed for accuracy by the project leader. Changes in PTSD symptom scores from baseline to post-intervention were converted to standardized mean differences for comparison across studies. Risk ratios were calculated for PTSD case rates post-deployment. When several studies that compared an intervention group with a similar control/comparator reported the same outcome category and measure type, we conducted meta-analysis. We conducted meta-regression by adding a categorical variable, representing setting (i.e., in theater) or population (military vs. law enforcement or first responders) to the meta-analysis model to assess whether this variable was associated with the outcome across studies. The quality of the body of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers study limitations (risk of bias), directness, consistency, precision, and publication bias. Results Sixteen controlled trials and 13 cohort comparisons reporting PTSD outcomes met inclusion criteria. Eight controlled trials and two cohort studies had high risk of bias, primarily due to poor, differential, or unknown response rate at follow-up. Twenty-four of the 29 studies included military personnel. Interventions included Acceptance-based Skills training, Attention Bias Modification training, stress inoculation with biofeedback, Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, group psychological debriefing, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for sub-clinical stress, embedding mental health providers in theater, Third Location Decompression, reintegration programs, and a 3-week post-deployment residential program for psychological resource strengthening. Meta-analyses of studies comparing a group that received a stress control intervention to a group that did not receive an intervention found no significant difference in reduction in PTSD symptom scores (moderate QoE) or PTSD case rate post-deployment (low QoE). A meta-analysis of studies comparing a specific stress control intervention to an active comparator (usually standard stress management education) found no significant effect on PTSD symptom scores (moderate QoE). Conclusion Although combat and operational stress control (COSC) interventions may play a valuable role in decreasing stress, decreasing absenteeism, and enabling return to duty, a systematic review of 29 studies that included a control/comparison group found little evidence that COSC is effective in preventing PTSD or decreasing PTSD symptom scores in military personnel.

No abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.