Violence against healthcare professionals in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis of frequency, risk factors, interventions, and preventive measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To assess the frequency, risk factors, consequences, and prevention of violence against healthcare workers in intensive care units. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for studies on violence against healthcare workers in adult intensive care units. Risk factors, patient characteristics, and implications for healthcare workers were collected. Study quality, bias, and level of evidence were assessed using established tools. Results Seventy-five studies with 139,533 healthcare workers from 32 countries were included. The overall median frequency of violence was 51% (IQR 37–75%). Up to 97% of healthcare workers experienced verbal violence, and up to 82% were victims of physical violence. Meta-analysis of frequency revealed an average frequency of 31% (95% CI 22–41%) for physical violence, 57% for verbal violence (95% CI 48–66%), and 12% for sexual violence (95% CI 4–23%). Heterogeneity was high according to the I 2 statistics. Patients were the most common perpetrators (median 56%), followed by visitors (median 22%). Twenty-two studies reported increased risk ratios of up to 2.3 or odds ratios of up to 22.9 for healthcare workers in the ICU compared to other healthcare workers. Risk factors for experiencing violence included young age, less work experience, and being a nurse. Patients who exhibited violent behavior were often male, older, and physically impaired by drugs. Violence was underreported in up to 80% of cases and associated with higher burnout rates, increased anxiety, and higher turnover intentions. Overall the level of evidence was low. Conclusions Workplace violence is frequent and underreported in intensive care units, with potential serious consequences for healthcare workers, calling for heightened awareness, screening, and preventive measures. The potential risk factors for violence should be further investigated. Systematic review registration : The protocol for this review was registered with Prospero on January 15, 2023 (ID CRD42023388449).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".