Effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork interventions for improving occupational well-being among perioperative healthcare providers: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occupational well-being of healthcare providers is crucial for safe and effective patient care, especially in the complex, high acuity operating room (OR) setting. There has been a recent proliferation of interventions to improve teamwork in the OR setting, but the impact of these interventions on clinician occupational well-being has yet to be systematically assessed. This systematic review aimed to summarize the impact of interprofessional teamwork interventions on occupational well-being among perioperative healthcare providers. We included all qualitative or quantitative peer-reviewed studies assessing a multidisciplinary teamwork intervention including members of at least two professions. We included seven studies which involved checklists (n = 2), simulation-based training (n = 2), and various teamwork development and training programs (n = 3). Five of the seven included studies reported no significant effect on job satisfaction, while one found a significant negative association between the intervention and job satisfaction (p < .0001), and another showed significant decrease in worker stress. Our findings highlight the gaps in our understanding of the impact of interprofessional teamwork interventions on healthcare worker well-being in the perioperative environment and the multi-level factors influencing OR teamwork, intervention implementation, and well-being across the different professions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".