To determine the well-being of physicians and nurses in hospital practice in Europe, and to identify interventions that hold promise for reducing adverse clinician outcomes and improving patient safety.

Baseline cross-sectional survey of 2187 physicians and 6643 nurses practicing in 64 hospitals in six European countries participating in the EU-funded Magnet4Europe intervention to improve clinicians’ well-being.

Acute general hospitals with 150 or more beds in six European countries: Belgium, England, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.

Physicians and nurses with direct patient contact working in adult medical and surgical inpatient units, including intensive care and emergency departments.

Burnout, job dissatisfaction, physical and mental health, intent to leave job, quality of care and patient safety and interventions clinicians believe would improve their well-being.

Poor work/life balance (57% physicians, 40% nurses), intent to leave (29% physicians, 33% nurses) and high burnout (25% physicians, 26% nurses) were prevalent. Rates varied by hospitals within countries and between countries. Better work environments and staffing were associated with lower percentages of clinicians reporting unfavourable health indicators, quality of care and patient safety. The effect of a 1 IQR improvement in work environments was associated with 7.2% fewer physicians and 5.3% fewer nurses reporting high burnout, and 14.2% fewer physicians and 8.6% fewer nurses giving their hospital an unfavourable rating of quality of care. Improving nurse staffing levels (79% nurses) and reducing bureaucracy and red tape (44% physicians) were interventions clinicians reported would be most effective in improving their own well-being, whereas individual mental health interventions were less frequently prioritised.

Burnout, mental health morbidities, job dissatisfaction and concerns about patient safety and care quality are prevalent among European hospital physicians and nurses. Interventions to improve hospital work environments and staffing are more important to clinicians than mental health interventions to improve personal resilience.

Schizotypal disorder is associated with a high level of disability at an individual level and high societal costs. However, clinical recommendations for the treatment of schizotypal disorder are scarce and based on limited evidence. This review aims to synthesise the current evidence on treatment for schizotypal disorder making recommendations for clinical practice.

This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search will be performed in PsychArticles, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, we will search for relevant articles manually. Inclusion criteria are published studies including individuals diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria, or schizotypal disorder according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria. We will include interventional studies comprising any pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment trials for patients with schizotypal disorder, and all relevant outcome measures will be reported. Risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Data will be synthesised using narrative or thematic analysis and, if suitable, through meta-analysis.

No original data will be collected as part of this study and ethics approval is, therefore, not applicable. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at international scientific meetings. We will aim at submitting the final paper for publication within 4 months of completion of analyses. Furthermore, this systematic review will inform clinicians and researchers on the current state of evidence on treatment for schizotypal disorder. Findings may guide proposals for further research and potentially guide recommendations for clinical practice using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

CRD42022375001.

Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.

Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

CRD42022338299.