Prioritising nurses' and doctors' health at work: a scoping review of monitoring instruments.

OBJECTIVE: Nurses' and doctors' health at work is crucial for their overall performance and the quality of care they provide. The Jobs Demands Resources (JD-R) model offers a framework for health at work, encompassing 'job demands', 'job resources', 'personal resources', 'leadership', 'well-being' and 'outcomes'. While various instruments exist to measure health, an overview of instruments specifically designed for assessing nurses and doctors health is currently missing. This study provides a comprehensive overview of available health instruments specifically developed and validated for healthcare professionals in hospital care. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing the health of nurses and/or doctors in hospitals using or evaluating instruments based on the JD-R model, published between January 2011 and January 2024, excluding student-exclusive samples. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data on study and sample characteristics, as well as details of the measurement instruments, including main and subconstructs. Instruments were categorised based on the JD-R model domains. Descriptive analysis and data visualisation were performed using Excel and Python. RESULTS: We included 1204 studies, reporting 986 unique instruments. We identified 32 comprehensive instruments suitable for broad health screening, measuring four or more of the JD-R model domains. Additionally, we identified instruments focusing on specific domains for targeted screening needs. Furthermore, we present frequently reported instruments assumed to be extensively evaluated, user-friendly, accessible and available in multiple languages. CONCLUSIONS: Health at work cannot be determined by a single instrument alone, underscoring the multidimensional nature of workplace health. Alternatively, organisations should select instruments based on domains most relevant and applicable to their context. This approach ensures a more comprehensive assessment of health at work.

Representation of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Disease Medications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, but their systematic underrepresentation in cardiovascular randomized clinical trials (RCTs) limits the generation of appropriate evidence to guide cardiovascular risk management (CVRM). Objective: To evaluate the underrepresentation of patients with CKD in cardiovascular RCTs, and to highlight evidence gaps in CVRM medications in this population. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov from February 2000 through October 2021 for RCTs with full-text publications. If no full-text publications were found in ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar were also searched. Eligible RCTs were those evaluating the effectiveness of antiplatelets, anticoagulants, blood pressure-lowering drugs, glucose-lowering drugs, or cholesterol-lowering drugs in adults with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Trials with a sample size of fewer than 100 patients were excluded. Findings: In total, 1194 RCTs involving 2 207 677 participants (mean [SD] age, 63 [6] years; 1 343 970 males [64%]) were included. Since 2000, the percentage of cardiovascular RCTs excluding patients with CKD has increased from 66% to 79% (74% overall [884 RCTs]). In 864 RCTs (72%), more patients were excluded than anticipated on safety grounds (63% [306] of trials required no dose adjustment, and 79% [561] required dose adjustment). In total, 158 RCTs (13%) reported results for patients with CKD separately (eg, in subgroup analyses). Significant evidence gaps exist in most CVRM interventions for patients with CKD, particularly for those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Twenty-three RCTs (2%) reported results for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, 15 RCTs (1%) reported for patients receiving dialysis, and 1 RCT (0.1%) reported for recipients of kidney transplant. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review suggest that representation of patients with CKD in cardiovascular RCTs has not improved in the past 2 decades and that these RCTs excluded more patients with CKD than expected on safety grounds. Lack of reporting or underreporting of results for this patient population is associated with evidence gaps in the effectiveness of most CVRM medications in patients with all stages of CKD, particularly CKD stages 4 to 5.

Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clinical trial register (CTR) searches can accurately identify a greater number of completed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) than electronic bibliographic database (EBD) searches for systematic reviews of interventions, and to quantify the number of eligible ongoing trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an evaluation study and based our search for RCTs on the eligibility criteria of a systematic review that focused on the underrepresentation of people with chronic kidney disease in cardiovascular RCTs. We conducted a combined search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible RCTs registered up to June 1, 2023. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for publications of eligible RCTs published up to June 5, 2023. Finally, we compared the search results to determine the extent to which the two sources identified the same RCTs. RESULTS: We included 92 completed RCTs. Of these, 81 had results available. Sixty-six completed RCTs with available results were identified by both sources (81% agreement [95% CI: 71-88]). We identified seven completed RCTs with results exclusively by CTR search (9% [95% CI: 4-17]) and eight exclusively by EBD search (10% [95% CI: 5-18]). Eleven RCTs were completed but lacked results (four identified by both sources (36% [95% CI: 15-65]), one exclusively by EBD search (9% [95% CI: 1-38]), and six exclusively by CTR search (55% [95% CI: 28-79])). Also, we identified 42 eligible ongoing RCTs: 16 by both sources (38% [95% CI: 25-53]) and 26 exclusively by CTR search (62% [95% CI: 47-75]). Lastly, we identified four RCTs of unknown status by both sources. CONCLUSION: CTR searches identify a greater number of completed RCTs than EBD searches. Both searches missed some included RCTs. Based on our case study, researchers (eg, information specialists, systematic reviewers) aiming to identify all available RCTs should continue to search both sources. Once the barriers to performing CTR searches alone are targeted, CTR searches may be a suitable alternative.