%0 Journal Article
%@ 1929-0748
%I JMIR Publications
%V 12
%N 
%P e43692
%T Assessing the Well-Being at Work of Nurses and Doctors in Hospitals: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Monitoring Instruments
%A Boskma,Amber
%A van der Braak,Kim
%A Ansari,Neda
%A Hooft,Lotty
%A Wietasch,Götz
%A Franx,Arie
%A van der Laan,Maarten
%+ Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713, Netherlands, 31 653561255, boskma@nfu.nl
%K well-being at work
%K well-being
%K well being
%K health care professionals
%K doctors
%K nurses
%K monitoring
%K assessment
%K measure
%K scale
%K instruments
%K scoping literature review
%K occupational health
%D 2023
%7 25.8.2023
%9 Protocol
%J JMIR Res Protoc
%G English
%X Background: Well-being at work can be defined as “creating an environment to promote a state of contentment which allows an employee to flourish and achieve their full potential for the benefit of themselves and their organisation.” In the health care context, well-being at work of nurses and doctors is important for good patient care. Moreover, it is strongly associated with individual- and organization-level consequences. Relevant literature presents models and concepts of physical, mental, and social well-being. This study uses the 6 elements of the job demands-resources (JD-R) model to interpret well-being at work (job demands, job resources, personal resources, leadership, well-being, and outcomes) as part of a Netherlands Federation of University Medical Hospitals program to find ways to improve and monitor health care professionals’ well-being in Dutch hospitals. Many instruments exist to measure well-being at work in terms of population, setting, and other aspects. An overview of available and eligible instruments assessing and monitoring the well-being of nurses and doctors is currently missing. Objective: We will perform a scoping review aiming to provide an overview of validated instruments assessing and monitoring the well-being of nurses and doctors at work. Methods: We will perform a search of published literature in the following databases: Medline, Embase, and CINAHL. Studies will be eligible if they (1) assess well-being at work of nurses and doctors employed in hospitals; (2) describe an evaluation of an instrument or review an instrument; (3) measure well-being at work or aspects of well-being at work according to the elements of the JD-R model, and (4) were published in English from 2011 onwards. Title/abstract screening according to the eligibility criteria will be followed by full-text screening. Data extraction of included studies will be conducted by 3 reviewers independently. Reviewers will use standardized data extraction forms that include study characteristics, sample characteristics, measurement instrument details, and psychometric properties. The analysis will be descriptive. When synthesizing the data, a distinction will be made between comprehensive instruments and common instruments. Results: This scoping review identifies instruments that have been developed and validated for monitoring the well-being of nurses and doctors at work. Studies were searched between September and December 2021 and screened between December 2021 and May 2022. A total of 739 studies were included. Conclusions: Timely screening of well-being at work may be beneficial for individual health care workers, the organization, and patients. There is often a substantial gap and mismatch between employer perceptions of well-being and well-being interventions. It is important to develop and implement suitable interventions adapted to the needs of nurses and doctors and their health or other problems. Well-being screening should be timely to gain insight into these needs and problems. Moreover, to determine the effectiveness of well-being interventions, measurement is mandatory. The results will be critical for organizations to select a monitoring instrument that best fits the needs of employees and organizations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43692 
%M 37624632
%R 10.2196/43692
%U https://www.researchprotocols.org/2023/1/e43692
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/43692
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37624632