↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: A narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 767)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
212 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Mental healthcare staff well-being and burnout: A narrative review of trends, causes, implications, and recommendations for future interventions
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, December 2017
DOI 10.1111/inm.12416
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith Johnson, Louise H. Hall, Kathryn Berzins, John Baker, Kathryn Melling, Carl Thompson

Abstract

Rising levels of burnout and poor well-being in healthcare staff are an international concern for health systems. The need to improve well-being and reduce burnout has long been acknowledged, but few interventions target mental healthcare staff, and minimal improvements have been seen in services. This review aimed to examine the problem of burnout and well-being in mental healthcare staff and to present recommendations for future research and interventions. A discursive review was undertaken examining trends, causes, implications, and interventions in burnout and well-being in healthcare staff working in mental health services. Data were drawn from national surveys, reports, and peer-reviewed journal articles. These show that staff in mental healthcare report poorer well-being than staff in other healthcare sectors. Poorer well-being and higher burnout are associated with poorer quality and safety of patient care, higher absenteeism, and higher turnover rates. Interventions are effective, but effect sizes are small. The review concludes that grounding interventions in the research literature, emphasizing the positive aspects of interventions to staff, building stronger links between healthcare organizations and universities, and designing interventions targeting burnout and improved patient care together may improve the effectiveness and uptake of interventions by staff.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 212 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 14 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Unspecified 5 10%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 148. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#81,463
of 12,281,267 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
#2
of 767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,549
of 344,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,281,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.