Categories
Change Password!
Reset Password!
Training for physicians can help to improve physical, mental, and social well-being and reduce distress/burnout.
In a recent systematic review published in the ‘PLOS ONE’ journal, coaching was shown to have positive effects on wellness (work/life balance, quality of life, resilience, job contentment, psychological capital, and work empowerment) in healthcare physicians. It also decreased emotional tiredness, distress, and long-term stress reaction in doctors.
The safety of people and the standard of care rely greatly on physician wellness. Although coaching has been successfully and extensively applied across many enterprises to improve well-being but has only lately been deliberated for doctors. Sylvain Boet et al. reviewed the current evidence on the influence of coaching by trained professionals on the wellness, distress and burnout of doctors.
An extensive search was performed on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC and Web of Science databases for relevant data. Research on doctors of any speciality undergoing coaching by trained coaches was included. A minimum of 1 measure along the wellness continuum was examined. Risk of bias tools such as Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools for randomized controlled studies and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies of interventions were used. A total of 2531 references were retrieved.
Out of these, 14 were included which comprised 1099 doctors:
For non-RCTs, a moderate risk or serious risk of bias was observed. Notably, 5 RCTs had a lower risk of bias. For at least one outcome evaluated, a positive influence of coaching was reported by the participants in the included qualitative studies.
According to evidence from RCTs that were previously conducted, coaching can boost physician well-being and lessen stress and burnout. Although they have quite a few drawbacks, non-randomized interventional trials had similar results. It is vital to have standardized outcome measures and coherent reporting.
PLOS ONE
Impact of coaching on physician wellness: A systematic review
Sylvain Boet et al.
Comments (0)