Burnout in psychosocial oncology clinicians: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined burnout in psychosocial oncology clinicians. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize what is known about the prevalence and severity of burnout in psychosocial clinicians who work in oncology settings and the factors that are believed to contribute or protect against it. METHOD: Articles on burnout (including compassion fatigue and secondary trauma) in psychosocial oncology clinicians were identified by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Web of Science Core Collection. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles were reviewed at the full-text level, and of those, nine met study inclusion criteria. All were published between 2004 and 2018 and included data from 678 psychosocial clinicians. Quality assessment revealed relatively low risk of bias and high methodological quality. Study composition and sample size varied greatly, and the majority of clinicians were aged between 40 and 59 years. Across studies, 10 different measures were used to assess burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue, in addition to factors that might impact burnout, including work engagement, meaning, and moral distress. When compared with other medical professionals, psychosocial oncology clinicians endorsed lower levels of burnout. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This systematic review suggests that psychosocial clinicians are not at increased risk of burnout compared with other health care professionals working in oncology or in mental health. Although the data are quite limited, several factors appear to be associated with less burnout in psychosocial clinicians, including exposure to patient recovery, discussing traumas, less moral distress, and finding meaning in their work. More research using standardized measures of burnout with larger samples of clinicians is needed to examine both prevalence rates and how the experience of burnout changes over time. By virtue of their training, psychosocial clinicians are well placed to support each other and their nursing and medical colleagues.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: The last decade has seen a growth in the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine therapies, and one of the most popular and sought-after complementary and alternative medicine therapies for nonspecific low back pain is massage. Massage may often be perceived as a safe therapeutic modality without any significant risks or side effects. However, despite its popularity, there continues to be ongoing debate on the effectiveness of massage in treating nonspecific low back pain. With a rapidly evolving research evidence base and access to innovative means of synthesizing evidence, it is time to reinvestigate this issue. METHODS: A systematic, step-by-step approach, underpinned by best practice in reviewing the literature, was utilized as part of the methodology of this umbrella review. A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, AMED, ICONDA, Academic Search Premier, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, CINAHL, HealthSource, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, investigating systematic reviews and meta-analyses from January 2000 to December 2012, and restricted to English-language documents. Methodological quality of included reviews was undertaken using the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: Nine systematic reviews were found. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews varied (from poor to excellent) although, overall, the primary research informing these systematic reviews was generally considered to be weak quality. The findings indicate that massage may be an effective treatment option when compared to placebo and some active treatment options (such as relaxation), especially in the short term. There is conflicting and contradictory findings for the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain when compared against other manual therapies (such as mobilization), standard medical care, and acupuncture. CONCLUSION: There is an emerging body of evidence, albeit small, that supports the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of non-specific low back pain in the short term. Due to common methodological flaws in the primary research, which informed the systematic reviews, recommendations arising from this evidence base should be interpreted with caution.