Interventions to reduce bullying in health care organizations: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of staff-to-staff bullying and its consequences in the health care sector has given rise to urgent knowledge needs among health care employers, union representatives, and professional associations. The purpose of this scoping review is to increase the uptake and application of synthesized research results of interventions designed to address bullying among coworkers within health care workplaces. The scoping review's methodology uses an adapted version of the Arksey and O'Malley framework to locate and review empirical studies involving interventions designed to address bullying in health care workplaces. The findings of the review reveal eight articles from three countries discussing interventions that included educative programming, bullying champions/advocates, and zero-tolerance policies. The reported evaluations extend beyond bullying to include organizational culture, trust in management, retention rates, and psychosocial health. The most promising reported outcomes are from participatory interventions. The results of the review make a compelling case for bullying interventions based on participatory principles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it