Psychological Safety in Saudi Arabian Healthcare: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Psychological safety arises from the knowledge that one will not be penalised for speaking one’s mind, sharing concerns, or admitting mistakes. There is a dearth of studies in the Saudi Arabian context on the subject of mindfulness-based interventions to improve psychological safety in the workplace.Objectives: This study aims to investigate psychological safety in the Saudi Arabian healthcare sector, with the goal of promoting mindfulness-based interventions for healthcare workers. Presently, there are no formal training programs in Saudi Arabia for the healthcare workforce; essentially, the concept of mindfulness-based organisational education has yet to reach the attention of human resource managers in this sector. Our aim, therefore, is to raise awareness of the potential for novel intervention programs to improve psychological safety.Methods: The review follows the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) method, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews. The aim of a scoping review is to detect potential research gaps. Presently, mindfulness-based programs relating to psychological safety are under-researched in the Saudi Arabian context, and a scoping review is a preliminary requirement before a formal systematic review is conducted.Results: Our findings indicate that healthcare workers do perceive barriers to psychological safety in the workplace, suggesting a need for training interventions that may help improve this situation.Conclusion: Saudi Arabian healthcare settings require further interventions, in line with Saudi Vision 2030, to improve workplace effectiveness and increase psychological safety among healthcare workers.
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 | 0.039 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".