Purposes Healthcare workers are at risk of stress-related disorders. Risk communication can be an effective preventive health measure for some health risks, but is not yet common in the prevention of stress-related disorders in an occupational healthcare setting. The overall aim is to examine whether risk communication was part of interventions aimed at the prevention of stress-related disorders in healthcare workers. Method We performed a scoping review using the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. We searched in Medline, Web of Science and PsychInfo for studies reporting on preventive interventions of stress-related disorders in healthcare workers between 2005 and December 2020. Studies were included when the intervention reported on at least one element of risk communication and one goal. We predefined four elements of risk communication: risk perception, communication of early stress symptoms, risk factors and prevention; and three goals: inform, stimulate informed decision-making and motivate action. Results We included 23 studies that described 17 interventions. None of the included interventions were primarily developed as risk communication interventions, but all addressed the goals. Two interventions used all four elements of risk communication. The prominent mode of delivery was face to face, mostly delivered by researchers. Early stress symptoms and risk factors were measured by surveys. Conclusions Risk communication on risk factors and early signs of stress-related disorders is not that well studied and evaluated in an occupational healthcare setting. Overall, the content of the communication was not based on the risk perception of the healthcare workers, which limited the likelihood of them taking action.

No abstract

Background: Instruments with sufficient diagnostic accuracy are better able to detect healthcare workers (HCWs) who are at risk of psychological distress. The objective of this review is to examine the diagnostic accuracy and measurement properties of psychological distress instruments in HCWs. Methods: We searched in Embase, Medline and PsycINFO from 2000 to February 2021. We included studies if they reported on the diagnostic accuracy of an instrument. To assess the methodological quality of the studies with regard to diagnostic accuracy, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and, for the measurement properties, the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Results: Seventeen studies reporting on eight instruments were included. Overall, the methodological quality assessing the diagnostic accuracy and measurement properties was low, specifically for items addressing the domain ‘index test’. The items addressing ‘reference standard’, ‘time and flow’ and ‘patient selection’ were mostly unclear. The criterion validity of the single-item burnout, the Burnout–Thriving Index, and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) was sufficient, with area under the curve ranging from 0.75 to 0.92 and sensitivity 71–84%, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that it is questionable whether screening for HCWs at risk of psychological distress can be performed sufficiently with the included instruments due to the low numbers of studies per instrument and the low methodological quality.