Abstract
Consistently engaging with client distress can negatively impact mental health workers (MHWs). This has been described by the concept of empathy-based stress (EBS) (which encompasses burnout; secondary traumatic stress; compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma). Previous reviews of interventions to reduce EBS have not addressed MHWs as a distinct group, despite evidence suggesting they are particularly vulnerable to it. In the context of rising demand for mental health services, it is especially important to understand how to mitigate the impact of EBS on MHWS. This scoping review therefore aimed to identify and describe available interventions to reduce or prevent EBS in MHWs. A systematic scoping review of the literature between 1970 and 2022 was undertaken using five electronic databases. A total of 51 studies were included, which varied significantly with regards to: interventions used; study methodology and theoretical underpinnings. Studies were grouped according to the level at which they aimed to intervene, namely: individual; team or organisational. The review concluded that most studies intervened at the level of the individual, despite the proposed causes of EBS being predominantly organisational. Furthermore, theoretical links to the origins of EBS were largely unclear. This suggests a lack of empirical evidence from which organisations employing MHWs can draw, to meaningfully prevent or reduce EBS in their staff. A dedicated research agenda is outlined to address this, and, other pertinent issues in the field and signifies a call for more theoretically grounded research.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | e0306757 |
Journal | PLoS ONE |
Volume | 19 |
Issue number | 12 |
Early online date | 5 Dec 2024 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 5 Dec 2024 |
Data Availability Statement
The review protocol was registered on OSF and is available at https://osf.io/b7kcr/. The search terms used to conduct the systematic search in each data base are included in supporting information. All papers identified in the systematic search were uploaded to Covidence for screening and extraction, available at https://app.covidence.org/reviews/130454. Characteristics of included studies (Table 4), studies reporting ethnicity data (Table 5) and descriptions of intervention categories from included studies (Table 6) are contained within the manuscript. The quantitative measures used in included studies (S3) and the recommendations for future research made in included studies (S4) are in supporting information. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist is included in supporting information (S1).Funding
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work