Systematic review of well-being interventions for minority healthcare workers.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-21 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2025.1531090
Tanvi Bafna, Mansoor Malik, Mohua C Choudhury, William Hu, Christine M Weston, Kristina R Weeks, Cheryl Connors, M Haroon Burhanullah, George Everly, Henry J Michtalik, Albert W Wu
{"title":"Systematic review of well-being interventions for minority healthcare workers.","authors":"Tanvi Bafna, Mansoor Malik, Mohua C Choudhury, William Hu, Christine M Weston, Kristina R Weeks, Cheryl Connors, M Haroon Burhanullah, George Everly, Henry J Michtalik, Albert W Wu","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2025.1531090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Healthcare workers' well-being is of utmost importance given persistent high rates of burnout, which also affects quality of care. Minority healthcare workers (MHCW) face unique challenges including structural racism and discrimination. There is limited data on interventions addressing the psychological well-being of MHCW. Thus, this systematic review aims to identify interventions specifically designed to support MHCW well-being, and to compare measures of well-being between minority and non-minority healthcare workers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched multiple electronic databases. Two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and extraction. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT) or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria were utilized to assess the methodological quality of studies, based on the study design. Total scores as percentages of criteria met were used to determine overall quality as low (<40%), moderate (40-80%), or high (>80%). For conflicts, consensus was reached through discussion. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of study designs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,816 records were screened and 43 were included in the review. The majority of included studies (76.7%) were of moderate quality. There were no randomized control trials and only one study included a well-being intervention designed specifically for MHCW. Most (67.4%) were quantitative-descriptive studies that compared well-being measures between minority and non-minority identifying healthcare workers. Common themes identified were burnout, job retention, job satisfaction, discrimination, and diversity. There were conflicting results regarding burnout rates in MHCW vs non-minority workers with some studies citing protective resilience and lower burnout while others reported greater burnout due to compounding systemic factors.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings illuminate a lack of MHCW-specific well-being programs. The conflicting findings of MHCW well-being do not eliminate the need for supports among this population. Given the distinct experiences of MHCW, the development of policies surrounding diversity and inclusion, mental health services, and cultural competency should be considered. Understanding the barriers faced by MHCW can improve both well-being among the healthcare workforce and patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1531090"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11885290/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1531090","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Healthcare workers' well-being is of utmost importance given persistent high rates of burnout, which also affects quality of care. Minority healthcare workers (MHCW) face unique challenges including structural racism and discrimination. There is limited data on interventions addressing the psychological well-being of MHCW. Thus, this systematic review aims to identify interventions specifically designed to support MHCW well-being, and to compare measures of well-being between minority and non-minority healthcare workers.

Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases. Two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and extraction. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT) or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria were utilized to assess the methodological quality of studies, based on the study design. Total scores as percentages of criteria met were used to determine overall quality as low (<40%), moderate (40-80%), or high (>80%). For conflicts, consensus was reached through discussion. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of study designs.

Results: A total of 3,816 records were screened and 43 were included in the review. The majority of included studies (76.7%) were of moderate quality. There were no randomized control trials and only one study included a well-being intervention designed specifically for MHCW. Most (67.4%) were quantitative-descriptive studies that compared well-being measures between minority and non-minority identifying healthcare workers. Common themes identified were burnout, job retention, job satisfaction, discrimination, and diversity. There were conflicting results regarding burnout rates in MHCW vs non-minority workers with some studies citing protective resilience and lower burnout while others reported greater burnout due to compounding systemic factors.

Discussion: Our findings illuminate a lack of MHCW-specific well-being programs. The conflicting findings of MHCW well-being do not eliminate the need for supports among this population. Given the distinct experiences of MHCW, the development of policies surrounding diversity and inclusion, mental health services, and cultural competency should be considered. Understanding the barriers faced by MHCW can improve both well-being among the healthcare workforce and patient care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信