MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410577844 · doi:10.2196/66360

Compassion Fatigue and Burnout Among Health Care Professionals: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4410577844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Guilherme Capobianco dos Santos, Martins Fideles dos Santos Neto, Stela Regina Pedroso Vilela Torres de Carvalho, Márcia Regina Furlani, Cíntia Canato Martins, Emerson Roberto dos Santos, João Daniel de Souza Menezes, Matheus Querino da Silva, Loiane Letícia dos Santos, Thaysa Castro Molina, Natália Almeida de Arnaldo Silva Rodriguez Castro, Helena Landim Gonçalves Cristóvão, Randolfo dos Santos, Vânia Maria Sabadoto Brienze, Alba Regina de Abreu Lima, Patrícia da Silva Fucuta, Denise Cristina Mós Vaz-Oliani, Neide Aparecida Micelli Domingos, Maria Cristina de Oliveira Santos Miyazaki, Gerardo Maria de Araújo Filho, Júlio César André

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintBurnoutCompassion fatigueHealth careProtocol (science)NursingHealth professionalsPsychologyCompassionMedicineApplied psychologyMedical educationAlternative medicineComputer scienceClinical psychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Compassion fatigue and burnout among health care professionals are growing concerns, impacting the well-being of both providers and patients. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to map existing evidence on the levels of compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress among health care professionals while identifying factors influencing their professional quality of life. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review using established methods proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al, also incorporating the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping reviews and reporting guidelines. EMBASE, ERIC, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science will be searched from March 2019 to March 2024, with an update closer to the time of manuscript submission. Gray literature sources will also be searched. Publications that contain primary studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines addressing compassion fatigue and burnout prevention in health care professionals will be selected for inclusion. Extracted data items will include study characteristics, interventions for the prevention of compassion fatigue and burnout, measures of compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress, as well as the quality of reporting and methodology. RESULTS: A narrative synthesis with summary tables will be used to describe our findings. The review is expected to be completed by December 2025, and the search strategy has been developed and pilot-tested. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings will help identify gaps in the literature with respect to compassion fatigue and burnout prevention strategies for health care professionals. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of current research, informing future interventions and policies aimed at improving health care professionals' well-being and job satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework r83cu; https://osf.io/r83cu. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/66360.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.014
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.020

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.

Opus teacher head0.680
GPT teacher head0.754
Teacher spread0.074 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→