Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Feb 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Evid Based Soc Work (2019). 2023 Jul 3;20(6):914–933. doi: 10.1080/26408066.2023.2231446

Table 1.

Preliminary ecological facilitators and barriers to self-care.

Reference Level Barriers (−) and Facilitators (+) to Self-Care Practices Type Demographics
Practitioners
 (1) Bloomquist et al. (2016) Structural Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 786
Individual +Greater post-MSW experience Setting United States
 + Emotional, Spiritual, and Professional Self-care, Compassion Satisfaction, Positive Perceptions of Self-Care, Professional Quality of Life
 −Burnout, Compassion Fatigue, Psychological self-care
 (2) Cuartero and Campos-Vidal (2019) Structural Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 270
Individual + Compassion Satisfaction; −Compassion Fatigue Setting Spain
 (3) Loeffler et al. (2018) Structural + Identifying as White, Female, Greater Financial Stability, For Profit Employers (vs. non-Profit), Working in Micro or Meso (in comparison with Macro level practice) Size (n) 348
Relational +Married Setting Rural United States
Individual +Older Sample Practitioners
 −Self-Reported Health, Greater Number of Hours Worked
 (4) Miller, Barnhart, et al. (2021) Structural +ldentifying as Heterosexual and Greater Financial Stability Sample Practitioners
Relational +Married Size (n) 1,568
Individual + Self-Reported Physical and Mental Health, and Engagement in Self-Care Predicted Lower COVID-19 Related Distress Setting SE United States
 (5) Miller, Donohue Dioh, et al. (2019) Structural + Greater Financial Stability and Belonging to Professional Organization Sample Practitioners
Relational +Married Size (n) 623
Individual + Greater Self-Reported Health Setting United States
 (6) Miller, Donohue Dioh, Larkin, et al. (2018) Structural + Identifying as White, Female, Greater Financial Stability, For Profit Employers (vs. non-Profit), Working in Micro or Meso (in comparison with Macro level practice) Sample Practitioners
Relational +Married Size (n) 222
Individual +Older-Self-Reported Health, Greater Number of Hours Worked, Setting SE United States
 (7) Miller, Grise-Owens, et al. (2020) Structural +ldentifying as White, Greater Financial Stability, and Licensed, Supervised others, Belonging to Professional Organization, Residing in Eastern South Central (−Western North Central Scored lowest), Working in Micro or Meso (in comparison with Macro level practice) Sample Practitioners
Relational +Married Size (n) 2,934
Individual +Older and Greater Experience, Educational Attainment, Self-Reported Health Setting United States
 (8) Miller, Lee, et al. (2019) Structural Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 831
Individual +Older and Greater Experience, Belonging to Professional Organization, Self-Reported Health, Reported More Self-Compassion Setting Southeastern United States
 (9) Miller et al. (2017) Structural +Greater Financial Stability and Licensed Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 138
Individual +Greater Self-Reported Health Setting United States
 (10) Miller, Poklembova, et al. (2020) Structural −Greater Number of Hours Worked Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 138
Individual +Greater Self-Reported Health Setting Slovakia
 (11) Miller, Poklembova, et al. (2021) Structural +Greater Educational Attainment Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 250
Individual +Greater Self-Reported Health Setting Poland
 (12) Miller and Reddin Cassar (2021) Structural +Greater Financial Stability and Licensed Sample Practitioners
Relational +Married Size (n) 2,460
Individual +Greater Self-Reported Health and Working In-Person Setting Southeastern United States
 (13) Salloum et al. (2019) Structural Sample Child Welfare Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 177
Individual −Self-care practices, burnout, secondary trauma, and less years of experience associated with impaired mental health symptoms. Setting United States
 (14) Salloum et al. (2015) Structural Sample Practitioners
Relational Size (n) 107
Individual −Self-care practices predicted lower burnout and higher compassion satisfaction but not secondary trauma. Setting United States
 (15) Xu et al. (2019) Structural +Masters/Doctoral Students (−Bachelors) for Burnout and Compassion Satisfaction Sample Practitioners
 −Self-Care Barriers risk for Burnout and Secondary Traumatic Stress but not Compassion Satisfaction
Relational Size (n) 61
Individual +Self-Care Practices inversely related to Burnout but not associated with Secondary Traumatic Stress or Compassion Satisfaction Setting United States
Students
 (1) Diebold et al. (2018) Structural −Institutional Supports, Demands, and Expectations Sample Students
Relational Size (n) 209
Individual +Holistic, Balance-Limited time and competing expectations and responsibilities Setting United States
 (2) Newcomb et al. (2017) Structural −Lack of Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills on Self-Care Sample Students
Relational −Experiencing Adverse Childhood Experiences Size (n) 20
Individual Setting Australia
 (3) O’Neill et al. (2019) Structural Sample Students
Relational Size (n) 90
Individual +Daily (not weekly or monthly) Self-Care Practices Predicted Lower Academic Stress Setting United States
Educators
 (1) Miller, Donohue Dioh, Larkin, et al. (2018) Structural +For Profit Employers (vs. non-Profit), Licensed Sample Educators
Relational Size (n) 127
Individual Setting United States
 (2) Miller, Grise-Owens, et al. (2018) Structural +Greater Academic Rank, Licensure Status, and Experience Sample Educators
Relational Size (n) 124
Individual Setting SE United States
 (3) Myers et al. (2022) Structural +Positive and Healthy Activities and Flexible Schedules, −Workload Sample Educators
Relational +Supervision, Collegial Relationships, Family, Social Support Size (n) 81
 −Role Overload Across Professional, Interpersonal, and Familial Relations
Individual Setting United States

+ indicates potential facilitating and − indicates barriers for self-care practices. — indicates no outcomes were present.