Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol

Sinead Creedon; Anna Trace; Ella Arensman; Maura P Smiddy

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13915.1

Home Browse Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Sinead Creedon ¹, Anna Trace², Ella Arensman¹, Maura P Smiddy¹

PUBLISHED 29 Oct 2024

Author details Author details

¹ School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland
² School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland

Sinead Creedon
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Anna Trace
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Ella Arensman
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Maura P Smiddy
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Infection prevention and control work environments are highly complex in nature and have long been associated with crisis events including serious infectious disease outbreaks. The role of infection control practitioners shifted exponentially during the COVID-19 pandemic and with this rapid and nebulous change came anxiety, emotional exhaustion and ultimately burnout. Burnout at work generally occurs as a response to chronic and prolonged exposure to emotionally challenging events, causing emotional exhaustion, feelings of cynicism, and lack of accomplishment at work. This systematic review aims to investigate burnout in infection control practitioners during public health crisis events (major outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics) in upper-middle and high-income countries on a global scale.

Methods

A mixed-methods systematic review will be carried out and will include qualitative, quantitative and primary mixed-methods studies that investigate the different elements of burnout, during public health crisis events. After an initial scoping literature search, up to six databases will be searched for studies on burnout in relation to infection prevention practitioners. Study quality will be checked using standardised JBI critical appraisal tools. The proposed review will follow the JBI convergent integrated approach for mixed methods systematic reviews. Following data extraction, quantitative data will then be converted into ‘qualitized data’ in the form of textual descriptions.

Discussion

It is well documented that adverse conditions during public health crisis events can lead to burnout. This systematic review will investigate of burnout in infection control practitioners in upper-middle and high-income countries during public health crisis events. The findings will inform healthcare professionals, senior policy makers and researchers and will help contribute to a richer understanding of burnout and associated factors in infection control practitioners.

Protocol registration number

PROSPERO 2024 CRD42024508996.

Keywords

burnout; healthcare; infection control nurse; infection control practitioner; mixed methods systematic review; pandemic.

Corresponding author: Sinead Creedon

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Creedon S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Creedon S, Trace A, Arensman E and Smiddy MP. Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:69 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13915.1) First published: 29 Oct 2024, 7:69 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13915.1) Latest published: 29 Oct 2024, 7:69 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13915.1)

Introduction

Infection control practitioners (ICPs) have long played pivotal roles during public health crisis events, since the emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2002, to the more recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, more commonly known as COVID-19. With each emerging infectious disease event, ICPs have had to manage the heavy burden associated with excessive workloads, working long hours, constantly changing guidelines, managing serious outbreaks, training frontline workers, and implementation of guidelines to help prevent the transmission of infection. This has contributed significantly to the already high burnout levels in the profession¹. The majority of ICPs are trained nurses by profession but some, particularly in the United States, are not trained nurses, but they do hold Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CIC^®) certification, which requires them to have completed a post-secondary education in a health-related field with the majority being nurses, but also other healthcare professionals. For this reason, this review will focus on both.

Maslach describes burnout as ‘a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job’ and is characterised by three core domains: emotional exhaustion, feelings of increased distance from work (cynicism), and reduced professional efficacy². Burnout is a response to sustained work-related stress, with both organisational factors³ such as the emotional demands of work and workload, individual factors², such as the person’s ability to cope², and their personality type⁴. Burnout is also now recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an occupational phenomenon and defined as “a syndrome conceptualised as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed”⁵.

Research strongly suggests that burnout in nurses is prevalent, particularly during the early career period or those who experience redeployment to the front line during public health crisis events (e.g., COVID-19)^6,7 Older nurses are also affected, leading to many leaving the profession well before retirement^8–11. Organisational issues, including lack of autonomy¹² and poor social supports can also contribute to burnout¹³, which can result in reduced work efficacy^14,15 and higher rates of absenteeism¹⁶. Additionally, patient mortality rates are reported to be higher in hospitals with higher rates of nurse burnout^17,18 and more recently, a study reported a correlation between nurse burnout and the implementation of infection prevention and control measures¹⁹.

Study aims and review questions

This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aims to evaluate the quantitative, qualitative, and primary mixed-method studies pertaining to infection control practitioner burnout factors (emotional exhaustion; feelings of increased distance from work/cynicism; reduced professional efficacy), and a response to sustained work-related stress, including organisational factors (e.g., the emotional demands of work and workload), individual factors (e.g., a person’s ability to cope), and personality type, during public health crisis events (extended outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics), in upper-middle to high-income countries.

Methods

Inclusion criteria

This MMSR protocol, which is visually represented below, incorporates the PICo framework (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, COntext) as recommended by JBI for MMSR²⁰. The PICo framework (Table 1) will facilitate the identification of the defining characteristics for the study inclusion criteria.

Table 1. PICo Framework²⁰.

Population	infection control practitioners
Phenomena of Interest	Burnout (emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy) and other associated factors (organisational) that contribute to the phenomena of interest
COntext	Acute and non-acute healthcare settings in upper-middle to high-income countries globally

Population: The review will consider studies that include only ICPs. Other healthcare staff (including students) will be excluded from the study. Studies will be excluded if they did not differentiate between for example, general nurses and ICPs.

Phenomena of interest: This review will consider studies that investigate the different elements of burnout and other associated factors such as organisational challenges, during public health crisis events as defined above.

Context: This review will consider studies from upper-middle and high-income countries and will include ICPs who work in both acute and non-acute healthcare settings.

Types of studies: This review will consider quantitative (cross-sectional and cohort or longitudinal studies) and qualitative (interviews, focus groups, case studies, image-based methods), and mixed methods studies. Primary mixed-methods studies will be included if the data can explicitly be extracted from the respective components²¹. Included studies will comprise of published, peer-reviewed, full text articles. Unpublished articles (grey literature) will not be included.

The proposed systematic review will follow the JBI convergent integrated approach for mixed methods systematic reviews²⁰. This methodology is justified as it will allow for a methodical and rigorous approach and provide a contextual understanding of the topic which further enhances reliability by combining different categories of evidence²². This approach is preferable, because the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research principles. Following data extraction, quantitative data will then be converted into ‘qualitized data’ in the form of textual descriptions²³.

Search strategy

An initial search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and PROSPERO did not yield any systematic reviews investigating burnout in ICPs hence, this review is the first to examine burnout in this cohort.

The search strategy aims to locate published studies only. JBI methodological guidance recommends a three-phase search strategy, the first of which is a broad initial search of at least two databases²⁴. A broad preliminary search of the literature was performed using Google Scholar and OneSearch (UCC Library default search engine) to identify relevant papers. Having completed the broad preliminary search of the literature, it was decided to include upper middle income countries as there were a number of specific burnout papers relating to IPCs found that were too important to exclude in this review. PROSPERO has also been updated. Following the preliminary search, the text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles, were used to develop a full search strategy for the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), and Web of Science (Clarivate). The search strategy, including keywords and index terms, will be adapted for each included information source. Additionally, reference lists of studies selected for critical appraisal, will be screened for additional studies. Boolean operators and controlled vocabulary terms will be used as required for each database search.

Searches published in English will be included. Studies published from November 2002 to August 2024 will be included, as the first public health crisis event experienced by ICPs was Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), first identified in November 2002. A sample search strategy (CINAHL) can be found in Extended Data²⁵

Study selection

Following the search, all identified citations will be loaded into Mendeley Reference Manager (version 2.117.0 /2024) and duplicates removed. These will be imported into the Johanna Briggs Institute, System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI)²⁶ for screening. Following a pilot test, titles and abstracts will then be screened by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review. Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full, and their citation details imported into JBI SUMARI²⁷. The full text of selected citations will be assessed against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of full-text studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the systematic review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the study selection process will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The results of the search will be reported in full in the final review and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram²⁷.

Assessment of methodological quality

Quantitative papers (and the quantitative component of mixed methods papers) selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI SUMARI²⁸.

Qualitative papers (and qualitative component of mixed methods papers) selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using the standardized critical appraisal instrument from JBI SUMARI²⁹.

Authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data for clarification, where required. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The results of critical appraisal will be reported in narrative format and by visual representation in a table.

Following critical appraisal, studies that do not meet the required quality threshold will be excluded.

Data extraction

Quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted from studies included in the review by two independent reviewers using the standardised JBI data extraction tool in JBI SUMARI²⁶ or in RevMan (version 5.0) The data extracted will include specific details about the populations, study methods, phenomena of interest, context etc., and outcomes of relevance to the review question(s). Specifically, quantitative data will be composed of data-based outcomes of descriptive and/or inferential statistical tests²³. In addition, qualitative data will be composed of verbatim themes or subthemes with corresponding illustrations and will be assigned a level of credibility depending on the quality of the data²³. This protocol was developed in line with the PRISMA-P checklist³¹, which can be found in Extended Data²⁵.

Data transformation

The quantitative data will be converted into “qualitized” data after data extraction. This will involve transformation into textual descriptions or narrative interpretation of the quantitative results in a way that answers the review questions²⁰.

Data synthesis and integration

This will involve assembling the qualitized quantitative data with the qualitative data. Assembled data will be categorised and pooled together based on similarity in meaning, to produce a set of integrated findings.

Dissemination

This study will be submitted for publication in scientific journals and will be publicly available as an open access paper.

Study status

The study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024508996). We are currently undergoing systematic searches. Screening, data extraction, synthesis and integration will take place thereafter.

Discussion

It is well established that adverse conditions during public health crisis events can lead to burnout in ICPs¹. Infection prevention and control (IPC) is a relatively young discipline dating back to the 1970s. Research by Melnyk et al., highlighted that 21% of the ICPs were found to be suffering from depression and 29.8% were suffering from anxiety. 74 % of ICPs reported worse mental health and 60% reported worse physical health³⁰. The findings in this report strongly indicate that ICPs are experiencing serious mental health challenges, particularly now in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic³⁰. The MMSR will investigate infection control practitioner burnout in upper-middle to high-income countries during public health crisis events. The findings will inform healthcare professionals, senior policy makers and researchers and will help contribute to a richer understanding of burnout and associated factors in infection control practitioners.

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Reporting guidelines

Zenodo: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist for “Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners during public health crisis events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol” (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12187333)²⁵

Sample search strategy

Zenodo: CINAHL (EBSCO) Sample Search Strategy (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12187333)²⁵

This work © is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of Virginia Conrick, Academic Success Librarian, from the College of Medicine and Health at University College Cork.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Lee SJ, Kim SH, Park JY: Infection control nurses’ burnout experiences in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs. 2024; 31(1): 135–46. Publisher Full Text
2. Maslach C, Leiter MP: New insights into burnout and health care: strategies for improving civility and alleviating burnout. Med Teach. 2017; 39(2): 160–163. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Adriaenssens J, De Gucht V, Maes S: Determinants and prevalence of burnout in emergency nurses: a systematic review of 25 years of research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52(2): 649–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Pérez-Fuentes MDC, Molero Jurado MDM, Martos Martínez Á, et al.: Burnout and engagement: personality profiles in nursing professionals. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(3): 286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Bianchi R, Schonfeld IS: Examining the evidence base for burnout. Bull World Health Organ. 2023; 101(11): 743–745. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Dall'Ora C, Ball J, Reinius M, et al.: Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review. Hum Resour Health. 2020; 18(1): 41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Guttormson JL, Calkins K, McAndrew N, et al.: Critical care nurses' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: a US national survey. Am J Crit Care. 2022; 31(2): 96–103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Auerbach DI, Buerhaus PI, Staiger DO: Will the RN workforce weather the retirement of the baby boomers? Med Care. 2015; 53(10): 850–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Haddad LM, Annamaraju P, Toney-Butler TJ: Nursing shortage. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL); 2023. Reference Source
10. Maben J, Bridges J: COVID-19: supporting nurses' psychological and mental health. J Clin Nurs. 2020; 29(15–16): 2742–2750. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Ní Léime Á, O'Neill M: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the working lives and retirement timing of older nurses in Ireland. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(19): 10060. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Labrague LJ, McEnroe-Petitte DM, Tsaras K: Predictors and outcomes of nurse professional autonomy: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019; 25(1): e12711. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, et al.: Nurses' burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2021; 77(8): 3286–3302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Wang S, Liu Y, Wang L: Nurse burnout: personal and environmental factors as predictors. Int J Nurs Pract. 2015; 21(1): 78–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Liu Y, Aungsuroch Y: Work stress, perceived social support, self-efficacy and burnout among Chinese registered nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2019; 27(7): 1445–1453. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, National Academy of Medicine, Committee on Systems Approaches to Improve Patient Care by Supporting Clinician Well-Being: Taking action against clinician burnout: a systems approach to professional well-being. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Bianchini C, Copeland D: The use of mindfulness-based interventions to mitigate stress and burnout in nurses. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2021; 37(2): 101–106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Schlak AE, Aiken LH, Chittams J, et al.: Leveraging the work environment to minimize the negative impact of nurse burnout on patient outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(2): 610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Widyani Y, Hutahaean S: Nursing burnout to infection prevention and control measures inpatient. JIKA. 2024; 6(1): 36–44. Publisher Full Text
20. Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, et al.: Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2108–2118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Apostolo J, et al.: Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 148: 178–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, et al.: Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, et al.: JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI; 2024.
24. Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, et al.: Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19(2): 120–129. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Creedon S, Trace A, Arensman E, et al.: Supplementary files associated with "burnout in infection control practitioners during public health crisis events: a mixed methods systematic review protocol". Zenodo. 2024. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12187333
26. Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, et al.: The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019; 17(1): 36–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al.: Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020. Publisher Full Text
29. Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K: Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3): 179–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Melnyk BM, Hsieh AP, Mu J, et al.: Associations among infection prevention professionals' mental/physical health, lifestyle behaviors, shift length, race, and workplace wellness support during COVID-19. Am J Infect Control. 2023; 51(1): 62–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Oct 2024

Author details Author details

¹ School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland
² School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, County Cork, Ireland

Sinead Creedon
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Anna Trace
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Ella Arensman
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Maura P Smiddy
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 29 Oct 2024, 7:69

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13915.1

© 2024 Creedon S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

440

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Creedon S, Trace A, Arensman E and Smiddy MP. Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:69 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13915.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 29 Oct 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 17 Dec 2024

Jane Chudleigh, King's College London, London, England, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15263.r43211

The authors propose a systematic review of 'Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events'. This is both timely and important given events in recent years.
The background/rationale is articulated well.
The methods are appropriate and described in detail. Please clarify if you intend to include papers from the community, primary care setting or is this just the hospital setting?
Please could the authors simply provide clarification about the setting as indicated in the comments i.e., hospital, community and/or primary care. This is my only reservation but there were no other options to choose from that seemed to fit.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Infection control, genetics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 14 Jan 2025

Sinead Creedon, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

14 Jan 2025

Author Response

Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and ... Continue reading Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and non-acute settings, which leaves it broad enough to include all types of healthcare settings. Further, most of the papers for this review are from the US and the word primary care can have a different meaning in different countries, so I think it might be best to keep it broad and use the term community, which would cover primary care. Would this be a more appropriate entry for the Context element of PICO?:-

Context: This review will consider studies from upper-middle and high-income countries and will include ICPs who work in both acute hospital settings and non-acute settings such as the community and long-term care.

Thank you,
Sinead
Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and non-acute settings, which leaves it broad enough to include all types of healthcare settings. Further, most of the papers for this review are from the US and the word primary care can have a different meaning in different countries, so I think it might be best to keep it broad and use the term community, which would cover primary care. Would this be a more appropriate entry for the Context element of PICO?:-

Context: This review will consider studies from upper-middle and high-income countries and will include ICPs who work in both acute hospital settings and non-acute settings such as the community and long-term care.

Thank you,
Sinead
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 14 Jan 2025

Sinead Creedon, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

14 Jan 2025

Author Response

Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and ... Continue reading Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and non-acute settings, which leaves it broad enough to include all types of healthcare settings. Further, most of the papers for this review are from the US and the word primary care can have a different meaning in different countries, so I think it might be best to keep it broad and use the term community, which would cover primary care. Would this be a more appropriate entry for the Context element of PICO?:-

Context: This review will consider studies from upper-middle and high-income countries and will include ICPs who work in both acute hospital settings and non-acute settings such as the community and long-term care.

Thank you,
Sinead
Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and non-acute settings, which leaves it broad enough to include all types of healthcare settings. Further, most of the papers for this review are from the US and the word primary care can have a different meaning in different countries, so I think it might be best to keep it broad and use the term community, which would cover primary care. Would this be a more appropriate entry for the Context element of PICO?:-

Context: This review will consider studies from upper-middle and high-income countries and will include ICPs who work in both acute hospital settings and non-acute settings such as the community and long-term care.

Thank you,
Sinead
Competing Interests: No competing interests Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Oct 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 1 29 Oct 24	read

Jane Chudleigh, King's College London, London, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

17 Dec 2024 | for Version 1

Jane Chudleigh, King's College London, London, England, UK

16 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Infection control, genetics

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

14 Jan 2025

Sinead Creedon, School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

Dear Jane,
Many thanks for taking the time to review my paper.
In the context part of my PICO, I have outlined ICPs who have worked in both acute and non-acute settings, which leaves it broad enough to include all types of healthcare settings. Further, most of the papers for this review are from the US and the word primary care can have a different meaning in different countries, so I think it might be best to keep it broad and use the term community, which would cover primary care. Would this be a more appropriate entry for the Context element of PICO?:-

Context: This review will consider studies from upper-middle and high-income countries and will include ICPs who work in both acute hospital settings and non-acute settings such as the community and long-term care.

Thank you,
Sinead

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Lee SJ, Kim SH, Park JY: Infection control nurses’ burnout experiences in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs. 2024; 31(1): 135–46. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Maslach C, Leiter MP: New insights into burnout and health care: strategies for improving civility and alleviating burnout. Med Teach. 2017; 39(2): 160–163. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Adriaenssens J, De Gucht V, Maes S: Determinants and prevalence of burnout in emergency nurses: a systematic review of 25 years of research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52(2): 649–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Pérez-Fuentes MDC, Molero Jurado MDM, Martos Martínez Á, et al.: Burnout and engagement: personality profiles in nursing professionals. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(3): 286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Bianchi R, Schonfeld IS: Examining the evidence base for burnout. Bull World Health Organ. 2023; 101(11): 743–745. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Dall'Ora C, Ball J, Reinius M, et al.: Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review. Hum Resour Health. 2020; 18(1): 41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Guttormson JL, Calkins K, McAndrew N, et al.: Critical care nurses' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: a US national survey. Am J Crit Care. 2022; 31(2): 96–103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Auerbach DI, Buerhaus PI, Staiger DO: Will the RN workforce weather the retirement of the baby boomers? Med Care. 2015; 53(10): 850–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Haddad LM, Annamaraju P, Toney-Butler TJ: Nursing shortage. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL); 2023. Reference Source

[10] 10. Maben J, Bridges J: COVID-19: supporting nurses' psychological and mental health. J Clin Nurs. 2020; 29(15–16): 2742–2750. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Ní Léime Á, O'Neill M: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the working lives and retirement timing of older nurses in Ireland. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(19): 10060. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Labrague LJ, McEnroe-Petitte DM, Tsaras K: Predictors and outcomes of nurse professional autonomy: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019; 25(1): e12711. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, et al.: Nurses' burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2021; 77(8): 3286–3302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Wang S, Liu Y, Wang L: Nurse burnout: personal and environmental factors as predictors. Int J Nurs Pract. 2015; 21(1): 78–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Liu Y, Aungsuroch Y: Work stress, perceived social support, self-efficacy and burnout among Chinese registered nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2019; 27(7): 1445–1453. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, National Academy of Medicine, Committee on Systems Approaches to Improve Patient Care by Supporting Clinician Well-Being: Taking action against clinician burnout: a systems approach to professional well-being. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Bianchini C, Copeland D: The use of mindfulness-based interventions to mitigate stress and burnout in nurses. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2021; 37(2): 101–106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Schlak AE, Aiken LH, Chittams J, et al.: Leveraging the work environment to minimize the negative impact of nurse burnout on patient outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(2): 610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Widyani Y, Hutahaean S: Nursing burnout to infection prevention and control measures inpatient. JIKA. 2024; 6(1): 36–44. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, et al.: Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2108–2118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Apostolo J, et al.: Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 148: 178–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, et al.: Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, et al.: JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI; 2024.

[24] 24. Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, et al.: Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19(2): 120–129. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Creedon S, Trace A, Arensman E, et al.: Supplementary files associated with "burnout in infection control practitioners during public health crisis events: a mixed methods systematic review protocol". Zenodo. 2024. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12187333

[26] 26. Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, et al.: The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019; 17(1): 36–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al.: Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K: Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3): 179–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Melnyk BM, Hsieh AP, Mu J, et al.: Associations among infection prevention professionals' mental/physical health, lifestyle behaviors, shift length, race, and workplace wellness support during COVID-19. Am J Infect Control. 2023; 51(1): 62–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al.: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Protocol registration number

Keywords

Introduction

Study aims and review questions

Methods

Inclusion criteria

Table 1. PICo Framework²⁰.

Search strategy

Study selection

Assessment of methodological quality

Data extraction

Data transformation

Data synthesis and integration

Dissemination

Study status

Discussion

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

Sample search strategy

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Burnout in Infection Control Practitioners During Public Health Crisis Events: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review Protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Protocol registration number

Keywords

Introduction

Study aims and review questions

Methods

Inclusion criteria

Table 1. PICo Framework20.

Search strategy

Study selection

Assessment of methodological quality

Data extraction

Data transformation

Data synthesis and integration

Dissemination

Study status

Discussion

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

Sample search strategy

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Table 1. PICo Framework²⁰.