Skip to main content
. 2023 May 12;2023(5):CD002892. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002892.pub6

Huang 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: randomised controlled trial
Study grouping: parallel group
Participants Baseline characteristics
Balint group intervention

  • Age 18‐25 26‐30 31‐40 (n): 18‐25 (15%) 26‐30 (39%) 31‐40 (22%)

  • Sex (N (% female)): 55 (NR)

  • Sample size: 70

  • Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR


Control (no intervention)

  • Age 18‐25, 26‐30, 31‐40 (n): 18‐25 (14%) 26‐30 (40%) 31‐40 (21%)

  • Sex (N (% female)): 56 (NR)

  • Sample size: 76

  • Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR


Overall

  • Age 18‐25 26‐30 31‐40 (n): NR

  • Sex (N (% female)): NR

  • Sample size: 146

  • Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR


Included criteria: The inclusion criteria encompassed (1) working in an ICU a licensed nurse for at least one year and working in hospitals with at least 1000 beds and 100 ICU nurses.
Excluded criteria: the exclusion criteria were: (1) Participants who have neuropsychiatric disorders; (2) Participants in pregnancy or lactation; (3) Participants who incomplete or invalid questionnaire.
Pretreatment: reported socio‐demographic baseline characteristics of participants randomised to the intervention group were similar to socio‐demographic baseline characteristics of participants randomised to the control group.
Compliance rate: 100%
Response rate: 100%
Type of healthcare worker: nurses
Interventions Intervention characteristics
Balint group intervention

  • Type of the intervention: Intervention type 1 ‐ to focus one’s attention on the experience of stress

  • Description of the intervention: Balint group training, including the case reports and group discussions, attempt to throw light on the doctor‐patient relationship

  • The number of sessions: 8

  • Duration of each session on average: 1.5 hours

  • Duration of the entire intervention: 8

  • Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: Short

  • Intervention deliverer: Senior Balint trainers

  • Intervention form: Group (face‐to‐face)


Control (no intervention)

  • Type of the intervention: NA

  • Description of the intervention: NA

  • The number of sessions: NA

  • Duration of each session on average: NA

  • Duration of the entire intervention: NA

  • Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: NA

  • Intervention deliverer: NA

  • Intervention form: NA
Outcomes Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Emotional Exhaustion

  • Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome


Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Depersonalisation

  • Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome


Maslach Burnout Inventory ‐ Personal accomplishment

  • Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification Sponsorship source: NR
Country: China
Setting: Hospital
Comments: NR
Authors name: Huigen Huang
Institution: Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
Email: gdpphhuanghuigen@163.com
Address: No. 102 Zhongshan Er Road, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.
Time period: 2016
Notes MBI‐EE included in analysis 1.1
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "under the leadership of Guangdong General Hospital from May 2016 to November 2016. The participants were selected through random sampling first, then they were divided into two groups (i.e. the intervention group and the control group) with a random number generator."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Then they were divided into two groups (i.e. the intervention group and the control group) with a random number generator
Insufficient information to understand whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, during, enrolment.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Participants were not blinded.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Participants were not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes High risk Participants were not blinded whereas outcomes are self‐reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk 6 of the 152 randomised participants withdrew (4%). Reasons provided. Missing not at random however loss to follow‐up is below our pre‐defined cut‐off point.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No trial registration or no study protocol reported, nor did we find one online.
Other bias Low risk No indication of other sources of bias