You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Healthcare
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

30 June 2022

Variables Impacting the Quality of Care Provided by Professional Caregivers for People with Mental Illness: A Systematic Review

,
,
,
and
1
Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universitat de València, Avgda, Blasco Ibañez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain
2
Instituto de Investigación de Psicología, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Avenue Tomás Marsano 232, Lima 34, Peru
3
Centro de Estudios Económicos y Sociales en Salud, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez National Institute of Health, Márquez 162, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico City 06720, Mexico
4
Unidad de Investigación en Medicina Basada en Evidencias, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez National Institute of Health, Márquez 162, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico City 06720, Mexico

Abstract

People with mental illness may need the support of caregivers in certain areas of their lives, and there is an increasing need for quality care for people with mental health problems by qualified health professionals. Often, these professionals may develop so-called burnout syndrome, although some authors point out that positive emotions may also arise. In addition, several variables can act as both protectors and stressors. Therefore, the main aim of the current study is to identify variables related to the professional care of people with mental illness (i.e., protective or stressor variables) through a systematic review. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines with a final selection of 20 articles found in the Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Dialnet databases between the months of October and November 2019, and updated in June 2022. The results show that job satisfaction is a strong predictor of the quality of care, and that congruence between personal and organizational values is a very important factor. Meanwhile, working in the same job for successive years, working in community mental health teams and experiencing burnout act as stressors and reduce the quality of care provided.

1. Introduction

With the arrival of the 21st century and changes to family structures, there is a growing need to invest resources to meet the demands of people in situations of dependency. According to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), dependency is defined as the result of a deficit in bodily function (i.e., physiological functions of the body systems, including psychological functions), bringing with it a limitation in activity. When environmental adaptation is unable to compensate for this limitation, there is a restriction in participation that causes the individual to depend on the help of others to carry out the activities of daily life [1]. There are several causes that can be the origin of a person’s dependence, the most common being aging, accidents or chronic illnesses, and they can give rise to different types of dependence, such as physical, mental or psychic, sensory or mixed dependence.
The American Psychiatric Association [2] defines mental illness as a significant alteration of emotional, cognitive and/or behavioral type. Basic psychological processes such as emotion, motivation, cognition, awareness, behavior, perception, learning and language are often affected. Such changes may affect personal care, the performance of domestic tasks, interpersonal relationships, professional functioning, and participation in leisure activities or community life. In addition, mental illness can have profound implications for subjective distress, psychological well-being, and a person’s quality of life [3]. All these factors can lead to a decompensation with the environment and cause situations of dependency in people with mental illness, especially in those with severe mental illness.
In the epidemiological domain, the Confederation of Mental Health in Spain [4] presented WHO data on the global prevalence and incidence of mental illness: 12.5% of all health problems are represented by mental disorders; in addition, this incidence increased by 18% between 2005 and 2015, and mental illness may become the leading cause of disabilities worldwide by 2030. Therefore, quality care for people with mental health problems that is provided by qualified health professionals is becoming increasingly necessary.
A professional caregiver is the person who, from different fields, is in charge of carrying out functions that exceed another person’s own abilities to take care of him/herself and to promote a better quality of life [5]. Their functions are usually related to the promotion of autonomy, mobility, hygiene, feeding, elimination (i.e., deposition) or safety, among others. In addition, they provide a point of support through functional social interaction [6]. He or she is generally trained in social health and, through a formal agreement, complies with a working schedule and receives remuneration in return [7]. Work in these types of professions, which is focused on direct contact with people with mental issues, can induce so-called burnout syndrome [8]. This concept was coined by Freudenger [9] to describe the physical and emotional exhaustion that can occur in workers in certain health institutions that tends to be associated with work characteristics such as long and variable working hours, as well as with a poor salary and high social demands, which could affect the care provided.
Some authors have begun to propose a change of focus, “offering a less pathologizing vision of caregivers, that is more focused on the analysis of those capacities and strengths that act as protective factors against prolonged stress” [10]. In a series of qualitative reports, Kramer [11] observed that attention to the positive aspects of caregivers’ work is consistent with a perspective on strengths that recognizes the capacity for continuous growth in each individual, and noted that the positive aspects of care can be important determinants of the quality of care provided. In this way, the following concepts have begun to be widely studied as fundamental characteristics of a high-quality professional caregiver: prosocial behavior, empathy, resilience and emotional intelligence.
Prosocial behavior includes specific actions of providing help or benefits to third parties in the absence of extrinsic material reward; it is the result of multiple individual and situational factors, including parenting variables and empathic traits [12]. Prosocial behavior can be postulated as a key factor in providing satisfactory care for dependent people since it shows that behaviors such as helping, sharing, consoling, caring and empathizing benefit not only the other, but also the person who performs such behaviors [13]. Another variable that might play a fundamental role in caring for people with mental illness is empathy, “which includes both a cognitive component (understanding the other person) and an emotional component (worrying about the other person)”, and which has been shown to be one of the most important predictors of prosocial behavior [12].
Resilience is defined as “a dynamic process in which psychological, social, environmental and biological factors interact to allow an individual, at any stage of life, to develop, maintain or recover their mental health despite exposure to adversity” [14] (p. 125). Factors that promote resilience include social support, the way that stressors are evaluated, and the coping style used by the caregiver. Relevant to the latter is the transactional theory of stress of Lazarus and Folkman [15], which states that the person and the environment maintain a dynamic, bidirectional, mutually reciprocal relationship, and that stress is therefore considered a process that includes the relationships between the individual and his or her environment, in which the perception of threat and/or damage causes physical and psychological reactions.
With regard to emotional intelligence, Mayer and Salovey [16] defined this concept as the ability of human beings to sense and identify emotions, understand and modify mental states. Emotional intelligence includes the mechanisms that allow the individual to manage the emotional adaptation necessary to face stressful situations. Thus, a positive attitude toward helping third parties can determine positive emotional functioning among caregivers and, in this way, help to offset the negative consequences that may arise from care [17].
Despite the recognized value of mental health and the need for care and support of people with mental illness, our understanding of the aspects that affect the quality of care to these patients is lacking. It is vitally important to study and analyze the impact that negative variables, such as burnout or perceived stress, can have on professional caregivers, and to focus on the abilities and strengths that act as protective factors to achieve improvement in the quality of life of both professionals and the patients in their charge.
Therefore, the main aim of the current study is to identify variables related to the professional care of people with mental illness (i.e., protective or stressor variables) through a systematic review.
The secondary objective is to identify the main interventions that are currently being implemented in relation to these variables for professional caregivers of people with mental illness.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a systematic review of the published scientific literature regarding variables impacting the professional care of people with mental illness. The guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews proposed in the PRISMA statement were followed [18] (Appendix A). In addition, the SPIDER tool for qualitative and mixed studies was used to establish the research questions and search strategies [19]. Regarding the ethical standards, no ethical approval or participant consent is required for this type of research (i.e., systematic review).

2.1. Information Sources

The systematic search was performed between October and November 2019, and updated in June 2022, in the Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, ScienceDirect and Dialnet databases, including all articles published from 1900 to 2021 (inclusive). A total of 2429 articles were recovered: 135 articles from PubMed, 221 from WoS, 1637 from ScienceDirect and 436 from Dialnet.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

A protocol was registered in PROSPERO and the search was conducted according to the following criteria. The identification code is CRD42022340313.

2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) articles that reported empirical research or interventions; (b) articles that referred to variables related to the professional practice of professional caregivers in the field of mental health; (c) articles in any language (to collect as many articles as possible, as well as to reduce the “Tower of Babel” effect; i.e., the prevalence of studies in a certain language over others written in lesser-represented languages [20]), and (d) articles to which full-text access was possible.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) articles that did not include narrative articles; (b) articles that included non-professional caregivers as participants; (c) articles that included professional caregivers who work in a field other than mental illness; (d) articles that include systematic reviews or metanalysis, and (e) articles that did not include variables related to the professional practice of care.

2.3. Search Strategy

The bibliographic search was carried out in three phases: an initial search to obtain an overview of the current situation, the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a manual search to evaluate the results obtained. The combinations of terms used were as follows.
In PubMed, the following terms were used: “professional caregiver” AND “mental health”; “professional caregiver” AND “mental illness”; “professional care’ AND “mental health”; “professional care” AND “mental illness” in the title and abstract fields. In WoS: “professional caregiver” AND “mental health”; “professional caregiver” AND “mental illness”; “professional care” AND “mental health”; “professional care” AND “mental illness” in the topic field. In ScienceDirect: “professional caregiver” AND “mental health”; “professional caregiver” AND “mental illness”; “professional care” AND “mental health” NOT “family” NOT “relative”; “professional care” AND “mental illness”, narrowing the search to research articles and in title, abstract and keywords fields. In Dialnet: “professional caregiver” AND “mental health”; “professional caregiver” AND “mental illness”; “professional care” AND “mental health”; “professional care” AND “mental illness”.
This process was carried out by one of the authors and corroborated by another through the Covidence tool [21].

2.4. Data Collection

The data to be extracted from each of the instruments were also defined in advance to ensure that the information was extracted in a uniform manner. The selected documents were then recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and in Covidence software.
Thus, the recorded information included (1) the name of the authors and the year of publication, (2) the aims, (3) the methodology used and the presence of a control group, (4) the number of participants in the sample, (5) the variables or themes included and the results obtained in each study, and (6) the limitations of each article.

2.5. Selection Process

The summaries of all the articles were read, and only 67 articles were considered adequate after passing an initial screening process (after eliminating 635 duplicate articles in different combinations of the various databases). After screening, an analysis of the full text of these 67 articles was carried out. As a result, 47 articles were eliminated because they included narrative articles (n = 5), they did not include professional caregivers in the mental health field (n = 13), they did not include variables related to the professional practice of care (n = 22), they include systematic reviews (n = 2) or the full text was not accessible (n = 5). The remaining 20 articles that met all the inclusion criteria were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. The various phases of execution of the procedure are detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

3. Results

The synthesis of the results of the selected studies is shown chronologically and alphabetically in Table 1. The order of analysis of the articles presented below differs from that shown in the table to facilitate the understanding of the results.
Table 1. Synthesis of the included articles.
As shown in Table 1, most of the articles are research articles (n = 13), followed by articles dedicated to interventions (n = 7). In terms of the objectives of the studies included, seven investigate the variables that may affect the dispensing of care (n = 7) [25,28,30,33,35,38,39], seven are focused on researching or increasing the training and knowledge of professional caregivers (n = 7) [24,29,31,32,36,41], three are dedicated to researching the working atmosphere and how it can affect care quality (n = 3) [26,27,40], and three investigate the caregiver perspective (n = 3) [22,23,37]. The studies can be divided into quantitative (n = 14), qualitative (n = 4) and mixed methods (n = 2) studies, as well as into cross-sectional (n = 7), longitudinal (n = 7), inductive (n = 3), exploratory (n = 1), study case (n = 1) and other (n = 1) studies. In addition, four of these works do not discuss the limitations of their studies [23,30,39,41]. Through the analysis carried out, several different but interrelated topics are developed below.
Professional caregivers whose personal values are consistent with the commonly shared values of a caring profession experience less exhaustion and greater personal well-being [33]. In addition, this well-being is also implicitly and explicitly linked to personal experiences and professional practices [33], and relates to factors such as honesty, clearly defined work, competence and fulfillment of obligations [39]. In addition, the feeling of calm and a healthy perception of oneself are critical components of effective professional practice [41]. On the other hand, caregivers with psychological distress report higher burnout and compassion fatigue scores, and lower levels of compassion satisfaction [35]. Furthermore, it has been seen that with each additional year that is spent in the caregiver position, emotional tension, burnout and mental health problems increase significantly [35].
When comparing various dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal fulfillment) between dyads of people with schizophrenia and depression and nurses who work as caregivers in psychiatric hospitals, there are no significant differences, and approximately a quarter of both have a high degree of exhaustion [38]. For other positive variables, such as emotional intelligence and resilience, it has been seen that both workers in this sector and subjects not working in this sector have an average level of both, so mental health professionals are no more “protected” from stressors than the rest of the population [30].
Other variables that may affect adequate care dispensing include recovery-oriented care, which is related to other variables, such as team support and interdependence, knowledge sharing, confidence, and belief in multidisciplinary collaboration, and which could be enhanced through the promotion of appropriate resources, training on best recovery practices and standardized assessment tools [25]. Job satisfaction is also an important variable in the provision of adequate care. Significant correlates of the reduction in job satisfaction include higher levels of education, increased work experience, a large number of cases, low income and few opportunities for professional development [40]. On the other hand, it has been seen that intrinsic motivational factors, such as satisfaction with the amount of responsibility, with the recognition of work, with the amount of variety in work and with the freedom of working method, lead to an increase in overall satisfaction [27]. In addition, social support plays a fundamental role in mental health-related jobs [40].
It has also been found that caregivers have a system of clearly articulated values, and twenty-one qualities can be identified that are classified into values about humans, values about disease/disability and values about the work of care, which are of critical importance for job effectiveness and satisfaction [37]. Another factor that may affect the provision of adequate care may be job satisfaction. It has been seen that it is essential that all caregivers work with a common goal, so a leader who manages the group and increases the individual skill of each worker has been proposed as a necessary figure [26]. Another aspect that plays a key role in this regard is the proximity provided by home care. This type of care is seen by professional caregivers as an opportunity to get to know the person beyond their role as a patient, which increased their involvement in the job and provided greater satisfaction than conventional care in hospitals or centers [22].
On the other hand, to reduce the negative effects that can arise as a result of the role of a professional caregiver in this area, a number of interventions have been developed in recent years. Mindfulness is used to teach participants to develop the capacity for observation, acceptance and compassion towards the emotions and thoughts that occur in the workplace. Mindfulness has been found to be useful for significant improvement in various facets of mindfulness (i.e., observational, descriptive, non-judgmental and non-reactive skills). There is also a significant increase in levels of compassion and a significant reduction in stress. Moreover, these changes have been maintained for up to 3 months after the training [28]. Another type of intervention is the Schwartz Rounds, a type of meeting in which staff discuss the emotional impact of their professional performance. In the study by Allen et al. [23], this intervention was rated as useful and beneficial by 10 professionals who perceived the rounds as an opportunity to express their feelings. This resulted in increased acceptance of their decisions, adaptive coping strategies and empathy towards and from their co-workers. They also expressed that it could help their relationship with patients. Six years later, rounds are still perceived as positive and as an opportunity to make the profession more humane.
On the other hand, the study of Barnes and Toews [41] showed that, years ago, mental health professionals had only a moderate knowledge of the principles of care, which has been seen to have important implications on the quality of care provided to patients. Another more current study yielded similar results [29]. It reported that community mental health workers caring for people with such diseases lack experience and training in this area, as only 8.7% of the participants had received community mental health training, although the post-training assessment they employed led to improvements in knowledge, especially related to home visits, case management and follow-up. According to a current study, a fundamental variable in caring for the group of people with mental illness would be continuous education and training, in addition to other aspects such as mentorship and the frequency of care [24].
In addition, individuals with certain mental illnesses, such as borderline personality disorder, often engage in countertransference toward their caregivers, who often react with avoidance and experience considerable stress [32]; as a result, many training programs are employed. Most of the work analyzed in this regard have generated benefits for participants in the form of significant increases in the competence for understanding of psychosis and relationship building [31], in the knowledge and attitudes of mental health professionals toward the recovery of people with serious mental illnesses [36], and in attitudes, self-efficacy and behavioral intent [34].

4. Discussion

The aim of the study is to carry out a qualitative analysis of a set of studies with different methodologies that include empirical research or interventions to identify variables affecting the professional care exercise of people with mental illness (i.e., protective or stressor variables). The secondary objective is to identify the main interventions that are currently being implemented in relation to these variables for professional caregivers of people with mental illness.
Regarding the main objective, the results of this study show that an important protective variable against caregiver burnout is the existence of coherence between the caregivers’ personal values and those values required by the profession. In this way, the actions and behaviors carried out in the workplace become meaningful for the person. There are several recent studies that confirm that congruence between the individual values of the person, and those defended by an organization are related to less emotional exhaustion and greater work commitment [42], as well as greater emotional well-being [43].
In addition, as Rose and Glass [39] state in their work, this emotional well-being would have a bilateral character since, at the same time, it is implicitly and explicitly related to personal events, as well as professional ones. This generalized interconnection was found again in a later study by the same authors in a sample of palliative care nurses [44]. Later studies, such as that of Boamah et al. [45], conducted with a sample of 3743 nurses, confirmed the importance of the relationship between these values and, in addition, it also highlighted the special relevance of the figure of a leader who unifies the group, establishes tasks with a common goal for the whole team and ensures an empowering work environment. This can help to reduce burnout, increase employee job satisfaction and improve the quality of patient care [45].
Job satisfaction also has a significant influence on the care provided to the patient, as it has been shown to have a moderating effect on the effort and eagerness dispensed. Related to this, it has also been shown that caregivers with higher satisfaction in their work environment are more likely to engage in a greater number of caregiving behaviors [46]. Other factors related to this occupational well-being are, positively, resilience developed by caregivers [47], and patients’ perception of the quality of care provided by their caregiver [48]; negatively, related factors include patients’ relapses [49]. In addition, being able to establish a closer relationship with the patient results in an increase in this job satisfaction, and at the same times prevents burnout and reduces stress. This closeness between patient and caregiver is fundamental in the patient’s recovery, as it results in more personalized care, a factor also related to the satisfaction of caregivers of people with mental illness [50,51]. Closely related to this is the concept of recovery-centered care, which, likewise, provides a more personalized and closer treatment, and would provide the same benefits for the caregiver. This term refers to a process that supports the patient’s long-term recovery efforts and that includes processes of fostering relationships, conveying hope, focusing on strengths (rather than deficits), supporting the person in engaging in purposeful activities, and educating and empowering people for self-care [52].
However, the findings of Acker’s study [40] are striking. The author states that aspects such as higher educational level and more work experience have a negative relationship with job satisfaction. A recent meta-analysis of more than 70 studies revealed that this association is established because people with a higher educational level, although they tend to benefit from aspects such as higher income, autonomy and role variety, also tend to suffer greater demands on their job in terms of working hours, task pressure, work intensity and time urgency [53]. These negative aspects would unbalance the benefits derived, a priori, from a higher educational level, and lead to higher job stress and lower job satisfaction. As for experience, it may be negatively correlated with job satisfaction due to the self-development of professionals related to caring fields, such as nursing [54]. Those who are new to their careers often experience this step as an opportunity for growth and development, something that would continue until six years of experience. After this point, professionals may begin to experience a sense of stagnation, leading to a period of disenchantment and reduced job satisfaction [54]. However, the opposite effect may occur, since job satisfaction may start to increase after 15 years of experience due to a reconciliation between the personal and professional development of professionals, and because those who continue to maintain a lower level of satisfaction tend to change careers [54].
Regarding the training of professionals about mental illness, comparing studies such as the Barnes and Toews study from almost 20 years ago [41], it can be seen that the picture is still similar. Several articles reveal a lack of knowledge and experience in this regard [29,55,56]. Apparently, this lack of staff training would be perceived as a key challenge in providing good quality care to patients with mental illness [55]. There are several elements that would play a key role in providing higher quality care to people with mental illness by professional caregivers [55]: increased knowledge about symptoms and diagnoses, increased communication and interactions with the patient, and a reduction in the stigma of mental illness.
Another aspect related to the main objective is the identification of the variables that act as stressors in the professional care practice of people with mental illness. Results show that with each additional year spent as a professional caregiver, emotional stress, burnout and mental health problems increase significantly. A systematic review by the team of O’Connor et al. [57] shows that mental health professionals have high levels of emotional exhaustion and moderate depersonalization. In addition, staff working in community mental health teams may be more vulnerable to burnout than those working in specialized teams [57]. On the other hand, a study conducted with a sample of 420 healthcare professionals analyzed the different dimensions of burnout in different time periods [58]. The results show a significant increase in emotional exhaustion and depersonalization over time. This shows that the demands and conditions of work environments can become stressors that can also increase the emotional exhaustion of workers chronically if they persist over time.
In addition, this emotional exhaustion can have a negative impact on patient care, as it has been shown to affect performance. In recent years, numerous mindfulness programs have been developed to alleviate this exhaustion in workers; however, the results do not show a high level of effectiveness. A systematic review [59] of thirty-four studies using this type of program also showed a low level of evidence. Only four of the interventions showed a significant improvement in burnout; however, this may be due to the fact that most of the studies had numerous methodological limitations. Other types of interventions that have been found to improve the quality of life of workers in this type of environment are those that promote open discussion, as they allow for the provision of mutual support among peers and result in decreased feelings of isolation and greater comfort in sharing social and emotional experiences [60]. These results are consistent with those found in a systematic review conducted in 2019 [61], which reveals that the most commonly used interventions in these types of professions that tend to have a positive effect on reducing burnout are those that promote communication skills, teamwork, and participatory programs.
This work has some limitations. These include a possible publication bias (i.e., the tendency to publish research with significant results and not those without significant differences), which is characteristic of review-type studies. This, added to the fact that the review was performed only on peer-reviewed publications, may have contributed to a possible loss of information or another line of argument. On the other hand, there is a high degree of methodological heterogeneity among the articles included in terms of the characteristics of the study.
On the other hand, the article has several strengths. First, four different databases have been used, which has allowed greater coverage of the results. In addition, one of them is WoS, the oldest, most widely used and authoritative database of research publications and citations in the world [62], which allows greater efficiency in obtaining greater coverage of articles [63], and which has a human team that avoids total automation of the process [64]. In addition, the study tried to minimize linguistic bias or the “Tower of Babel” effect [20], by searching for articles presented in any language, to avoid including only those studies published in English. In the future, this article could be enriched by a manual search for additional articles, for example, in the references of other articles or in the gray literature. Moreover, both the search process and the data extraction process should be performed and corroborated by more than one researcher. It is also necessary to develop a protocol for recording inclusion and exclusion criteria for primary studies.

5. Conclusions

After integrating and analyzing the results, it can be concluded that there are multiple factors of various kinds that can influence the quality of care provided by professional caregivers to persons with mental illness. Predictors of the quality of care provided include job satisfaction, congruence between personal values and those advocated by the organization where they work, and working with a common goal in an environment that facilitates employee empowerment.
On the other hand, it has also been seen that professional caregivers face several stressors in their work environment: working in the same job for consecutive years, working in community mental health teams and burnout. These stressors are related to increased emotional stress, mental health problems, greater vulnerability to burnout and poorer performance and quality of care.
Likewise, several studies report that there is a clear lack of training and experience on the part of caregivers about mental illness and how to provide adequate care. In this regard, promoting knowledge of the symptoms and the disease, facilitating communication and interactions with the patient and reducing the stigma of mental illness among workers can play a key role.
This study identifies different variables related to professional care for people with mental illness. However, it is not focused exclusively on those centered on a pathologizing view of caregiving, but also on variables that promote the well-being of the caregiver and, as a consequence, of the person being cared for, and that can act as protective factors. In this way, the aim is to raise awareness among researchers of the importance of changing the point of view and the focus of research towards a more positive and strengths-based approach of the caregiving profession. On a practical level, it is worth stressing the importance of carrying out training programs and specific training of caregivers towards mental illness, since several studies have highlighted the lack of knowledge and stigma that still prevails among these professionals towards this condition.
Research and clinical practices related to caregivers, both formal and informal, are of vital importance in all societies today, since it is predicted that mental illness may become the leading cause of disability worldwide by 2030 [4]. However, they are also necessary because of the rise of other factors such as the aging of the population, which is expected to double in the next 30 years to 1.5 billion people by 2050 [65]. It is therefore vitally important to care for those who care, because only in this way will it be possible to provide quality care for each and every person who requires it.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M.B.-L. and M.M.-V.; methodology, L.M.B.-L. and M.M.-V.; software, L.M.B.-L. and M.M.-V.; formal analysis, L.M.B.-L. and M.M.-V.; investigation, L.M.B.-L.; resources, M.M.-V.; data curation, L.M.B.-L. and M.M.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.B.-L.; writing—review and editing, L.M.B.-L., M.M.-V. and C.M.-S.; visualization, G.S.-E. and F.T.-T.; supervision, M.M.-V. and C.M.-S.; project administration, G.S.-E. and F.T.-T.; funding acquisition, F.T.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is one of the results of the research project HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”. Main researcher: Filiberto Toledano-Toledano Ph. D. The present research was funded by federal funds for health research and was approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. The source of federal funds did not control the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation or the decisions regarding publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the casual helpers for their aid with information processing and searching.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. PRISMA 2020 checklist.
Table A1. PRISMA 2020 checklist.
Section and TopicItemChecklist ItemLocation Where Item Is Reported
Title
Title1Identify the report as a systematic review.1
Abstract
Abstract2See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist.1
Introduction
Rationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.1–3
Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.3
Methods
Eligibility criteria5Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.3–4
Information sources6Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.3
Search strategy7Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.4
Selection process8Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.4
Data collection process9Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.4
Data items10aList and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.4
10bList and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.4
Study risk of bias assessment11Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.3–4
Effect measures12Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.NA
Synthesis methods13aDescribe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).4
13bDescribe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.4
13cDescribe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.4
13dDescribe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.NA
13eDescribe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression).NA
13fDescribe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.NA
Reporting bias assessment14Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).-
Certainty assessment15Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.-
Results
Study selection16aDescribe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.5
16bCite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.5
Study characteristics17Cite each included study and present its characteristics.6–14
Risk of bias in studies18Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.-
Results of individual studies19For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate), and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.NA
Results of syntheses20aFor each synthesis, briefly summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.6–13
20bPresent results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.NA
20cPresent results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.NA
20dPresent results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.NA
Reporting biases21Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.-
Certainty of evidence22Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.-
Discussion
Discussion23aProvide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.15–17
23bDiscuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.16
23cDiscuss any limitations of the review processes used.17
23dDiscuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.17
Other Information
Registration and protocol24aProvide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.3
24bIndicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.3
24cDescribe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.-
Support25Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.18
Competing interests26Declare any competing interests of review authors.18
Availability of data, code and other materials27Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.-
NA = Not applicable.

References

  1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association. What Is Mental Illness? American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Reed, G.M.; Spaulding, W.D.; Bufka, L.F. The relevance of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) to mental disorders and their treatment. Alter 2009, 3, 340–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Confederation of Mental Health in Spain. Guía de Estilo Sobre Salud Mental para Medios de Comunicación: Las Palabras sí Importan; Confederación SALUD MENTAL ESPAÑA: Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, P. El apoyo informal a las personas mayores en España y la protección social a la dependencia. Del familismo a los derechos de ciudadanía. Rev. Esp. Geriatr. Gerontol. 2005, 40, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Méndez, I.; Secanilla, E.; Martínez, J.P.; Navarro, J. Estudio comparativo de burnout en cuidadores profesionales de personas mayores institucionalizadas con demencias y otras enfermedades. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2011, 1, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cerquera, C.A.M.C.; Galvis, A.M.J.G. Efectos de cuidar personas con Alzheimer: Un estudio sobre cuidadores formales e informales. Pensam. Psicol. 2014, 12, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vásquez-Manrique, J.F.; Maruy-Saito, A.; Verne-Martin, E. Frecuencia del síndrome de burnout y niveles de sus dimensiones en el personal de salud del servicio de emergencia de pediatría del Hospital Nacional Cayetano Heredia en el año 2014: Lima, Perú. Rev. Neuro Psiquiatr. 2014, 77, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Freudenberger, H.J. Staff burnout. J. Soc. Issues 1974, 30, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Crespo, M.; Fernández-Lansac, V. Resiliencia en cuidadores familiares de personas mayores dependientes. An. Psicol. 2015, 31, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kramer, B.J. Gain in the caregiving experience: Where are we? What next? Gerontologist 1997, 37, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rodriguez, L.M.; Martí-Vilar, M.; Reig, J.E.; Mesurado, B. Empathy as a predictor of prosocial behavior and the perceived seriousness of delinquent acts: A cross-cultural comparison of Argentina and Spain. Ethics Behav. 2019, 31, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Correa, M.C. Aproximaciones epistemológicas y conceptuales de la conducta prosocial. Zona Próx. 2017, 27, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Moeller-Saxone, K.; Davis, E.; Stewart, D.E.; Diaz-Granados, N.; Herrman, H. Promoting resilience in adults with experience of intimate partner violence or child maltreatment: A narrative synthesis of evidence across settings. J. Public Health 2015, 37, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lazarus, R.; Folkman, S. Estrés y Procesos Cognitivos; Martínez Roca S.A.: Barcelona, Spain, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D. Models of emotional intelligence. In Handbook of Human Intelligence; Sternberg, R.J., Ed.; Cabridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 396–420. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gázquez, J.J.; Fuentes, M.D.C.P.; Del Mar Molero, M.; Mercader, I. Inteligencia emocional y calidad de vida del cuidador familiar de pacientes con demencia. Rev. Comun. Salud 2015, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  18. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cooke, A.; Smith, D.; Booth, A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual. Health Res. 2012, 22, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grégoire, G.; Derderian, F.; Le Lorier, J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a Tower of Babel bias? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1995, 48, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Covidence. Systematic Review Software; Veritas Health Innovation: Melbourne, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  22. Giménez-Díez, D.; Maldonado-Alía, R.; Torrent-Solà, L.; Granel, N.; Bernabeu-Tamayo, M.D. Nurses’ Experiences of Care at Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Teams: A case study research. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2021, 29, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Allen, D.; Spencer, G.; McEwan, K.; Catarino, F.; Evans, R.; Crooks, S.; Gilbert, P. The Schwartz Centre Rounds: Supporting mental health workers with the emotional impact of their work. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2020, 29, 942–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Avery, J.; Schreier, A.; Swanson, M. A complex population: Nurse’s professional preparedness to care for medical-surgical patients with mental illness. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2020, 52, 151232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fleury, M.J.; Sabetti, J.; Grenier, G.; Bamvita, J.M.; Vallée, C.; Cao, Z. Work-related variables associated with perceptions of recovery-oriented care among Quebec mental health professionals. BJPsych Open 2018, 4, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pileño, M.E.; Morillo, J.; Morillo, A.; Losa-Iglesias, M. The mental health team: Evaluation from a professional viewpoint. A qualitative study. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2018, 32, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goetz, K.; Kleine-Budde, K.; Bramesfeld, A.; Stegbauer, C. Working atmosphere, job satisfaction and individual characteristics of community mental health professionals in integrated care. Health Soc. Care Community 2017, 26, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Suyi, Y.; Meredith, P.; Khan, A. Effectiveness of mindfulness intervention in reducing stress and burnout for mental health professionals in Singapore. Explore 2017, 13, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, B.X.; Stone, T.E.; Davis, S.A. The effect of a community mental health training program for multidisciplinary staff. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2017, 32, 413–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Frajo-Apor, B.; Pardeller, S.; Kemmler, G.; Hofer, A. Emotional intelligence and resilience in mental health professionals caring for patients with serious mental illness. Psychol. Health Med. 2015, 21, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sørlie, T.; Borg, M.; Flage, K.B.; Kolbjørnsrud, O.B.; Haugen, G.B.; Benth, J.; Ruud, T. Training frontline workforce on psychosis management: A prospective study of training effects. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst. 2015, 9, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Utrera, E.; López, P.; Lopera, M.; Rosado, M. Efectividad de una intervención sobre inteligencia emocional en enfermeras especialistas en salud mental. NURE Investig. Rev. Cient. Enferm. 2014, 11, 4. [Google Scholar]
  33. Veage, S.; Ciarrochi, J.; Deane, F.P.; Andresen, R.; Oades, L.G.; Crowe, T.P. Value congruence, importance and success and in the workplace: Links with well-being and burnout amongst mental health practitioners. J. Context. Behav. Sci. 2014, 3, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Irvine, A.B.; Billow, M.B.; Bourgeois, M.; Seeley, J.R. Mental illness training for long term care staff. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2012, 13, 81.e7–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rossi, A.; Cetrano, G.; Pertile, R.; Rabbi, L.; Donisi, V.; Grigoletti, L.; Curtolo, C.; Tansella, M.; Thornicroft, G.; Amaddeo, F. Burnout, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction among staff in community-based mental health services. Psychiatry Res. 2012, 200, 933–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wilrycx, G.K.; Croon, M.A.; Van den Broek, A.H.; Van Nieuwenhuizen, C. Mental health recovery: Evaluation of a recovery-oriented training program. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 820846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Piat, M.; Ricard, N.; Sabetti, J.; Beauvais, L. The values and qualities of being a good helper: A qualitative study of adult foster home caregivers for persons with serious mental illness. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2007, 44, 1418–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Angermeyer, M.C.; Bull, N.; Bernert, S.; Dietrich, S.; Kopf, A. Burnout of caregivers: A comparison between partners of psychiatric patients and nurses. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2006, 20, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rose, J.; Glass, N. Community mental health nurses speak out: The critical relationship between emotional wellbeing and satisfying professional practice. Collegian 2006, 13, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Acker, G.M. The effect of organizational conditions (Role conflict, role ambiguity, opportunities for professional development, and social support) on job satisfaction and intention to leave among social workers in mental health care. Community Ment. Health J. 2004, 40, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barnes, G.E.; Toews, J. Mental health professionals’ knowledge in the field of caring for chronic mental disorders. Soc. Sci. Med. 1985, 21, 1229–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saito, Y.; Igarashi, A.; Noguchi-Watanabe, M.; Takai, Y.; Yamamoto-Mitani, N. Work values and their association with burnout/work engagement among nurses in long-term care hospitals. J. Nurs. Manag. 2018, 26, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, H.; Hall, N.C. When “I care” is not enough: An interactional analysis of teacher values, value congruence, and well-being. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 86, 102906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rose, J.; Glass, N. An Australian investigation of emotional work, emotional well-being and professional practice: An emancipatory inquiry. J. Clin. Nurs. 2010, 19, 1405–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boamah, S.A.; Read, E.A.; Laschinger, H.K.S. Factors influencing new graduate nurse burnout development, job satisfaction and patient care quality: A time-lagged study. J. Adv. Nurs. 2017, 73, 1182–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tsai, Y.; Wu, S.W. The relationships between organisational citizenship behaviour, job satisfaction and turnover intention. J. Clin. Nurs. 2010, 19, 3564–3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zheng, Z.; Gangaram, P.; Xie, H.; Chua, S.; Ong, S.B.C.; Koh, S.E. Job satisfaction and resilience in psychiatric nurses: A study at the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2017, 26, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Leggat, S.G.; Bartram, T.; Casimir, G.; Stanton, P. Nurse perceptions of the quality of patient care: Confirming the importance of empowerment and job satisfaction. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2010, 35, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Choi, J.; Boyle, D.K. RN workgroup job satisfaction and patient falls in acute care hospital units. J. Nurs. Adm. 2013, 43, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yamamoto-Mitani, N.; Saito, Y.; Takaoka, M.; Takai, Y.; Igarashi, A. Nurses’ and care workers’ perception of care quality in Japanese long-term care wards: A qualitative descriptive study. Glob. Qual. Nurs. Res. 2018, 5, 2333393618812189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Harris, B.; Panozzo, G. Barriers to recovery-focused care within therapeutic relationships in nursing: Attitudes and perceptions. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2019, 28, 1220–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Davidson, L.; González-Ibáñez, À. La recuperación centrada en la persona y sus implicaciones en salud mental. Rev. Asoc. Esp. Neuropsiquiatr. 2017, 37, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Solomon, B.C.; Nikolaev, B.N.; Shepherd, D.A. Does educational attainment promote job satisfaction? The bittersweet trade-offs between job resources, demands, and stress. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021, 107, 1227–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kavanaugh, J.; Duffy, J.A.; Lilly, J. The relationship between job satisfaction and demographic variables for healthcare professionals. Manag. Res. News 2006, 58, 567–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Muralidharan, A.; Mills, W.L.; Evans, D.R.; Fujii, D.; Molinari, V. Preparing long-term care staff to meet the needs of aging persons with serious mental illness. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2019, 20, 683–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mukesh, K.; Palayat, A.M.; Yesudas, K.F.; Divakaran, B. Attitude towards mental illness among staff nurses in a tertiary care hospital-a hospital-based cross-sectional study. J. Evol. Med. Dent. Sci. 2017, 6, 2231–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. O’Connor, K.; Neff, D.M.; Pitman, S. Burnout in mental health professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and determinants. Eur. Psychiatry 2018, 53, 74–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Mijakoski, D.; Karadzhinska-Bislimovska, J.; Stoleski, S.; Minov, J.; Atanasovska, A.; Bihorac, E. Job demands, burnout, and teamwork in healthcare professionals working in a general hospital that was analysed at two points in time. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 6, 723–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Klein, A.; Taieb, O.; Xavier, S.; Baubet, T.; Reyre, A. The benefits of mindfulness-based interventions on burnout among health professionals: A systematic review. Explore 2020, 16, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Dhinsa, T.J.; Dean, P.H.; Strahlendorf, C. Addressing social and emotional aspects of providing healthcare using Schwartz Rounds as an example. UBC Med. J. 2021, 12, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  61. Aryankhesal, A.; Mohammadibakhsh, R.; Hamidi, Y.; Alidoost, S.; Behzadifar, M.; Sohrabi, R.; Farhadi, Z. Interventions on reducing burnout in physicians and nurses: A systematic review. Med. J. Islam. Repub. Iran. 2019, 33, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Birkle, C.; Pendlebury, D.A.; Schnell, J.; Adams, J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bramer, W.M.; Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kleijnen, J.; Franco, O.H. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Web of Science Group. Editorial Selection Process. Clarivate. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/%20editorial-selection-process/ (accessed on 28 October 2019).
  65. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.