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.