Interventions for burnout and well-being in homelessness staff: a systematic scoping review

Lauren Ng, Emily Adams, David Henderson, Eddie Donaghy, Stewart Mercer
{"title":"Interventions for burnout and well-being in homelessness staff: a systematic scoping review","authors":"Lauren Ng, Emily Adams, David Henderson, Eddie Donaghy, Stewart Mercer","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.21.24312389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nHomelessness staff often experience high job demands, limited resources, and significant emotional strains; with high levels of burnout, stress, and trauma being common within the workforce. Despite growing recognition of these issues, limited information exists regarding interventions to address this. Aim\nTo conduct a systematic scoping review of interventions aimed at improving well-being and reducing burnout among homelessness staff. Methods\nAll eligible studies needed to include an intervention addressing burnout and/or well-being in homelessness staff, published in English with primary data. Evidence sources were left open with no data restrictions. Following a registered protocol (available at osf.io/jp5yx), a systematic search of five electronic databases (Medline, APA PsychInfo, Global Health, ASSIA, CINAHL) and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies were double-screened for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results\nOut of 5,775 screened studies, six met the inclusion criteria: two peer-reviewed and four non-peer-reviewed publications. No studies were retrieved from Google Scholar. The included studies comprised four quantitative non-randomised designs, one randomised controlled trial, and one mixed-methods study, with four being complex interventions. Three were therapy-based, two included supervision, and two comprised one-time educational sessions. Most were conducted in the United States (n=4), with two in the United Kingdom. The total pooled sample was 347 participants, though four studies were missing demographic data (age and gender). The studies used heterogenous measures and outcomes. Limitations included restrictions to English-only publications, potential gaps in capturing well-being measures, and a limited grey literature scope. Conclusion\nThere is a lack of research on well-being and burnout interventions in frontline homelessness staff. Identified studies were generally of low quality with a heterogeneity of measures and outcomes used to assess well-being and burnout, limiting generalisability of findings. More robust study designs, along with standardised measures and outcomes, are needed going forwards.","PeriodicalId":501388,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","volume":"699 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.21.24312389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Homelessness staff often experience high job demands, limited resources, and significant emotional strains; with high levels of burnout, stress, and trauma being common within the workforce. Despite growing recognition of these issues, limited information exists regarding interventions to address this. Aim To conduct a systematic scoping review of interventions aimed at improving well-being and reducing burnout among homelessness staff. Methods All eligible studies needed to include an intervention addressing burnout and/or well-being in homelessness staff, published in English with primary data. Evidence sources were left open with no data restrictions. Following a registered protocol (available at osf.io/jp5yx), a systematic search of five electronic databases (Medline, APA PsychInfo, Global Health, ASSIA, CINAHL) and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies were double-screened for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results Out of 5,775 screened studies, six met the inclusion criteria: two peer-reviewed and four non-peer-reviewed publications. No studies were retrieved from Google Scholar. The included studies comprised four quantitative non-randomised designs, one randomised controlled trial, and one mixed-methods study, with four being complex interventions. Three were therapy-based, two included supervision, and two comprised one-time educational sessions. Most were conducted in the United States (n=4), with two in the United Kingdom. The total pooled sample was 347 participants, though four studies were missing demographic data (age and gender). The studies used heterogenous measures and outcomes. Limitations included restrictions to English-only publications, potential gaps in capturing well-being measures, and a limited grey literature scope. Conclusion There is a lack of research on well-being and burnout interventions in frontline homelessness staff. Identified studies were generally of low quality with a heterogeneity of measures and outcomes used to assess well-being and burnout, limiting generalisability of findings. More robust study designs, along with standardised measures and outcomes, are needed going forwards.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对无家可归工作人员的职业倦怠和幸福感进行干预:系统性范围界定审查
背景无家可归者工作人员往往面临着高工作要求、有限的资源和巨大的情感压力;高水平的职业倦怠、压力和创伤是工作队伍中的普遍现象。尽管人们越来越认识到这些问题,但有关解决这些问题的干预措施的信息却很有限。目的对旨在改善无家可归人员的福祉和减少其职业倦怠的干预措施进行系统的范围界定研究。方法所有符合条件的研究均需包含针对无家可归人员职业倦怠和/或幸福感的干预措施,并以英文发表,提供原始数据。证据来源开放,无数据限制。按照注册协议(可在 osf.io/jp5yx 上获取),对五个电子数据库(Medline、APA PsychInfo、Global Health、ASSIA、CINAHL)和 Google Scholar 进行了系统检索。对纳入的研究进行了双重筛选。采用混合方法评估工具对方法质量进行评估。结果在筛选出的 5,775 项研究中,有 6 项符合纳入标准:2 项为同行评议出版物,4 项为非同行评议出版物。没有从谷歌学术中检索到任何研究。纳入的研究包括四项定量非随机设计、一项随机对照试验和一项混合方法研究,其中四项是复杂的干预措施。三项以治疗为基础,两项包括监督,两项包括一次性教育课程。大部分研究在美国进行(4 项),两项在英国进行。汇总样本共有 347 名参与者,但有四项研究缺少人口统计学数据(年龄和性别)。这些研究采用了不同的测量方法和结果。研究的局限性包括仅限于英文出版物、在捕捉幸福感衡量标准方面可能存在差距以及灰色文献范围有限。结论缺乏对一线无家可归人员的幸福感和职业倦怠干预措施的研究。已确定的研究质量普遍较低,用于评估幸福感和职业倦怠的措施和结果也不尽相同,这限制了研究结果的普遍性。今后需要更多可靠的研究设计,以及标准化的衡量标准和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Socio-medical Factors Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders on the Kenyan Coast Relationship between blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier integrity, cardiometabolic and inflammatory factors in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders Whole-exome sequencing study of opioid dependence offers novel insights into the contributions of exome variants Mayo Normative Studies: regression-based normative data for remote self-administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite and validation in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia EEG frontal alpha asymmetry mediates the association between maternal and child internalizing symptoms in childhood
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1