• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

工作场所心理健康专业人员披露心理困扰的证据的系统评价。

A systematic review of the evidence relating to disclosure of psychological distress by mental health professionals within the workplace.

机构信息

Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, UK.

Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottinghamshire, UK.

出版信息

J Clin Psychol. 2022 Sep;78(9):1712-1738. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23339. Epub 2022 Mar 5.

DOI:10.1002/jclp.23339
PMID:35247268
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9541467/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review evidence regarding prevalence and choices of disclosure of psychological distress, by mental health professionals within the workplace.

METHODS

Six databases were searched in June 2020. Studies were included if they were published in English language and included empirical quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods data. Studies were excluded if they focused on general healthcare professionals or the general population, or on stress or physical health problems. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Quality Appraisal tool.

RESULTS

Nine studies, with a total of 1891 participants, were included. Study quality varied, with studies generally reporting descriptive surveys using hypothetical disclosure scenarios. Distress was often conceptualized in psychiatric terms. These limitations mean conclusions should be treated with caution. Individuals were less likely to disclose in work and had negative experiences of doing so compared to social circles. Fear of stigma inhibited disclosure. There were differing levels of disclosure relating to recipient, trust, quality of supervision, how distress was conceptualized, and type of problem. Disclosure was experienced by some as valuable.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for further research, which addresses the nuanced complexities surrounding disclosure choices for mental health professionals.

摘要

目的

系统回顾心理健康专业人员在工作场所中披露心理困扰的普遍性和选择的证据。

方法

2020 年 6 月,对六个数据库进行了搜索。如果研究发表于英文且包含实证定量、定性或混合方法数据,则将其纳入。如果研究重点是一般医疗保健专业人员或一般人群,或关注压力或身体健康问题,则将其排除。使用混合方法质量评估工具评估研究质量。

结果

共纳入 9 项研究,总计 1891 名参与者。研究质量参差不齐,研究通常使用假设披露情景报告描述性调查。困扰通常是从精神病学角度来概念化的。这些局限性意味着结论应谨慎对待。与社交圈相比,个体在工作中不太可能披露,并且对披露有负面体验。对污名的恐惧抑制了披露。与收件人、信任、监督质量、困扰的概念化方式以及问题的类型有关,存在不同程度的披露。一些人认为披露是有价值的。

结论

需要进一步研究,以解决心理健康专业人员在披露选择方面的复杂问题。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e084/9541467/941ceecb5d40/JCLP-78-1712-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e084/9541467/941ceecb5d40/JCLP-78-1712-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e084/9541467/941ceecb5d40/JCLP-78-1712-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
A systematic review of the evidence relating to disclosure of psychological distress by mental health professionals within the workplace.工作场所心理健康专业人员披露心理困扰的证据的系统评价。
J Clin Psychol. 2022 Sep;78(9):1712-1738. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23339. Epub 2022 Mar 5.
2
Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.性虐待和暴力的心理社会干预的幸存者、家庭和专业人员的经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 4;10(10):CD013648. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013648.pub2.
3
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.在基层医疗机构或医院门诊环境中,如果患者出现以下症状和体征,可判断其是否患有 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
4
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
5
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
6
Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with hip, knee or hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed methods review.髋、膝或髋膝骨关节炎患者的运动干预和患者信念:一项混合方法综述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 17;4(4):CD010842. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010842.pub2.
7
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.
8
How lived experiences of illness trajectories, burdens of treatment, and social inequalities shape service user and caregiver participation in health and social care: a theory-informed qualitative evidence synthesis.疾病轨迹的生活经历、治疗负担和社会不平等如何影响服务使用者和照顾者参与健康和社会护理:一项基于理论的定性证据综合分析
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jun;13(24):1-120. doi: 10.3310/HGTQ8159.
9
Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.影响父母和非正式照顾者对常规儿童疫苗接种看法和做法的因素:定性证据综合分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 27;10(10):CD013265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013265.pub2.
10
How to Implement Digital Clinical Consultations in UK Maternity Care: the ARM@DA Realist Review.如何在英国产科护理中实施数字临床会诊:ARM@DA实证主义综述
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 May 21:1-77. doi: 10.3310/WQFV7425.

引用本文的文献

1
Psychometric validation of the Physician Well-Being Index-Expanded (ePWBI) among physician educators in Hong Kong.香港医师教育工作者中《医师幸福感指数扩展版》(ePWBI)的心理测量学验证
Ann Med. 2025 Dec;57(1):2532121. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2532121. Epub 2025 Jul 16.
2
Voices for change: inclusion of lived experience self-injury research, practice, education, and advocacy.变革之声:纳入自伤经历的研究、实践、教育与宣传。
Aust J Psychol. 2025 Feb 2;77(1):2456728. doi: 10.1080/00049530.2025.2456728. eCollection 2025.
3
'From that time onwards my role changed'. Disclosing suicidality in Australian workplaces a qualitative study.

本文引用的文献

1
Anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic umbrella review of the global evidence.COVID-19 大流行期间医护人员的焦虑和抑郁:全球证据的系统伞式综述。
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 21;11(9):e054528. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054528.
2
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明:系统评价报告的更新指南。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
3
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.
“从那时起,我的角色发生了变化”。澳大利亚工作场所中自杀倾向的披露:一项定性研究。
Health Promot Int. 2025 Mar 5;40(2). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaf017.
4
Contributory Factors to Self-Disclosure in Clinical Supervision: A Meta-ethnography.临床督导中自我披露的促成因素:一项元民族志研究
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2025 Mar-Apr;32(2):e70068. doi: 10.1002/cpp.70068.
5
[Patient and public involvement at the German Center for Mental Health: achievements and challenges].[德国精神卫生中心的患者及公众参与:成就与挑战]
Nervenarzt. 2024 May;95(5):458-466. doi: 10.1007/s00115-024-01630-8. Epub 2024 Mar 20.
6
Disclosure of Mental Health Problems or Suicidality at Work: A Systematic Review.工作场所中的心理健康问题或自杀意念的披露:系统评价。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Apr 17;20(8):5548. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20085548.
7
Anticipated Self and Public Stigma in Suicide Prevention Professionals.自杀预防专业人员的预期自我污名和公众污名
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Jun 28;13:931245. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.931245. eCollection 2022.
PRISMA 2020 解释和说明:系统评价报告的更新指南和范例。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160.
4
Experiences of mental health professionals supporting front-line health and social care workers during COVID-19: qualitative study.心理健康专业人员在新冠疫情期间为一线卫生和社会护理工作者提供支持的经验:定性研究
BJPsych Open. 2021 Mar 23;7(2):e70. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2021.29.
5
Mental health of mental health professionals during COVID-19 pandemic: Who cares for it?新冠疫情期间精神卫生专业人员的心理健康:谁来关心?
Asian J Psychiatr. 2020 Oct;53:102385. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102385. Epub 2020 Sep 1.
6
Burnout: A risk factor amongst mental health professionals during COVID-19.职业倦怠:COVID-19 期间心理健康专业人员面临的一个风险因素。
Asian J Psychiatr. 2020 Dec;54:102300. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102300. Epub 2020 Jul 8.
7
Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study.提升混合方法评价工具的内容效度:一项改良版的电子德尔菲研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:49-59.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008. Epub 2019 Mar 22.
8
The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: a global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas.健康污名与歧视框架:一个全球性、跨领域的框架,旨在为与健康相关的污名化研究、干预措施制定和政策提供信息。
BMC Med. 2019 Feb 15;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1271-3.
9
Mental health problems among clinical psychologists: Stigma and its impact on disclosure and help-seeking.临床心理学家的心理健康问题:污名及其对披露和寻求帮助的影响。
J Clin Psychol. 2018 Sep;74(9):1545-1555. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22614. Epub 2018 Mar 24.
10
Attitudes within the general population towards seeking professional help in cases of mental distress.一般人群在心理困扰时寻求专业帮助的态度。
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2017 Nov;63(7):614-621. doi: 10.1177/0020764017724819. Epub 2017 Aug 10.