OBJECTIVE: Physician wellness (well-being) is recognized for its intrinsic importance and impact on patient care, but it is a construct that lacks conceptual clarity. The authors conducted a systematic review to characterize the conceptualization of physician wellness in the literature by synthesizing definitions and measures used to operationalize the construct. METHODS: A total of 3057 references identified from PubMed, Web of Science, and a manual reference check were reviewed for studies that quantitatively assessed the "wellness" or "well-being" of physicians. Definitions of physician wellness were thematically synthesized. Measures of physician wellness were classified based on their dimensional, contextual, and valence attributes, and changes in the operationalization of physician wellness were assessed over time (1989-2015). RESULTS: Only 14% of included papers (11/78) explicitly defined physician wellness. At least one measure of mental, social, physical, and integrated well-being was present in 89, 50, 49, and 37% of papers, respectively. The number of papers operationalizing physician wellness using integrated, general-life well-being measures (e.g., meaning in life) increased [X 2 = 5.08, p = 0.02] over time. Changes in measurement across mental, physical, and social domains remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Conceptualizations of physician wellness varied widely, with greatest emphasis on negative moods/emotions (e.g., burnout). Clarity and consensus regarding the conceptual definition of physician wellness is needed to advance the development of valid and reliable physician wellness measures, improve the consistency by which the construct is operationalized, and increase comparability of findings across studies. To guide future physician wellness assessments and interventions, the authors propose a holistic definition.
OBJECTIVE: Physician wellness (well-being) is recognized for its intrinsic importance and impact on patient care, but it is a construct that lacks conceptual clarity. The authors conducted a systematic review to characterize the conceptualization of physician wellness in the literature by synthesizing definitions and measures used to operationalize the construct. METHODS: A total of 3057 references identified from PubMed, Web of Science, and a manual reference check were reviewed for studies that quantitatively assessed the "wellness" or "well-being" of physicians. Definitions of physician wellness were thematically synthesized. Measures of physician wellness were classified based on their dimensional, contextual, and valence attributes, and changes in the operationalization of physician wellness were assessed over time (1989-2015). RESULTS: Only 14% of included papers (11/78) explicitly defined physician wellness. At least one measure of mental, social, physical, and integrated well-being was present in 89, 50, 49, and 37% of papers, respectively. The number of papers operationalizing physician wellness using integrated, general-life well-being measures (e.g., meaning in life) increased [X 2 = 5.08, p = 0.02] over time. Changes in measurement across mental, physical, and social domains remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Conceptualizations of physician wellness varied widely, with greatest emphasis on negative moods/emotions (e.g., burnout). Clarity and consensus regarding the conceptual definition of physician wellness is needed to advance the development of valid and reliable physician wellness measures, improve the consistency by which the construct is operationalized, and increase comparability of findings across studies. To guide future physician wellness assessments and interventions, the authors propose a holistic definition.
Authors: Amanda J Deutsch; Hareena Sangha; Anthony Spadaro; Jacob Goldenring; Mira Mamtani; Kevin R Scott; Lauren W Conlon; Anish K Agarwal Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-08-01
Authors: Katherine Ann Gielissen; Emily Pinto Taylor; David Vermette; Benjamin Doolittle Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michelle Gates; Aireen Wingert; Robin Featherstone; Charles Samuels; Christopher Simon; Michele P Dyson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 2.692