| Authors |
Skrūzkalne, Iluta ; Nagle, Evija ; Andersen, Otto ; Perevozčikova, Jeļena ; Sakkeus, Luule ; Kairys, Antanas ; Griškēviča, Ingūna ; Seņkāne, Silva ; Ivanovs, Andrejs ; Reine, Ieva |
| Abstract [eng] |
Highlights: Public health relevance—How does this work relate to a public health issue? Healthcare professionals’ well-being has been reported in association with indicators related to patient safety, workforce sustainability, and healthcare system functioning. This systematic review synthesises current evidence on subjective well-being among healthcare professionals within a public health framework. Public health significance—Why is this work of significance to public health? The findings demonstrate substantial conceptual and methodological heterogeneity in existing research on healthcare professionals’ well-being. Identifying conceptual models, research instruments, and examining determinants contributes to more structured population-level monitoring of workforce well-being. Public health implications—What are the key implications or messages for practitioners, policymakers and/or researchers in public health? Multidimensional assessment frameworks may support the development of more coherent workforce policies and inform future research directions. Policymakers, healthcare managers, and researchers may use these findings to better understand factors associated with workforce sustainability in healthcare systems. The well-being of healthcare professionals (HCPs) is widely recognised as a critical construct related to workforce sustainability, patient safety, and healthcare system performance; however, research in this area remains conceptually fragmented. This systematic review identifies and critically analyses conceptual models, assessment instruments, and factors associated with HCPs’ subjective well-being. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across six databases covering 2014 to 2024, focusing on quantitative empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria, and the methodological quality of measurement instruments was evaluated with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist in validation-focused studies. Of the 7838 records initially identified, 48 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three primary thematic areas emerged: (1) conceptual models framing subjective well-being, (2) measurement instruments assessing subjective well-being, and (3) factors associated with subjective well-being among HCPs. Frequently applied conceptual frameworks included the job demands–resources model, Maslach burnout theory, and WHOQOL-related approaches. Commonly used instruments comprised the WHO-5, Maslach Burnout Inventory, and Mini-Z. In validation-focused studies assessed using COSMIN criteria, internal consistency and aspects of construct validity were generally reported as acceptable; however, reporting across measurement property domains was variable. Factors examined in relation to subjective well-being included workload, emotional exhaustion, social support, autonomy, and work–life balance. Overall, the reviewed literature demonstrates substantial variability in conceptual and methodological approaches and frequently focuses on single dimensions of well-being. These findings highlight the potential value of developing integrated, sector-specific frameworks to inform future measurement development and research in this field. |
