Diagnostic Accuracy and Measurement Properties of Instruments Screening for Psychological Distress in Healthcare Workers—A Systematic Review

Lima M. Emal (), Sietske J. Tamminga, Sanja Kezic, Frederieke G. Schaafsma, Karen Nieuwenhuijsen and Henk F. van der Molen
Additional contact information
Lima M. Emal: Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sietske J. Tamminga: Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sanja Kezic: Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Frederieke G. Schaafsma: Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Karen Nieuwenhuijsen: Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Henk F. van der Molen: Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

IJERPH, 2023, vol. 20, issue 12, 1-19

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.

Keywords: health personnel; self-reported stress; burnout; psychological; psychometrics; diagnostic criteria (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/12/6114/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/12/6114/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:12:p:6114-:d:1169808

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().