Abstract
Abstract
Background
Workplace violence (WPV) is highly prevalent in the health sector and remains a major occupational issue causing significant harm, ranging from bodily and psychological harm to death. Female healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of WPV.
Objectives
Identify risk factors of WPV among different professional categories of female HCWs.
Data sources
PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, along with their references lists January 2010 and March 2022.
Eligibility criteria
English language observational studies focusing on WPV among HCWs evaluating the risk factors, impacts and consequences of WPV in female HCWs.
Method
Risk of bias was assessed for all studies by Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. We estimated the pooled prevalence of WPV and the associated 95% CI using a random-effects meta-analysis model. We then described the associated factors and effects of WPV.
Results
28 reviewed studies (24 quantitative, 4 qualitative and 1 mixed-method) from 20 countries were selected. From the available results of 16 studies, the pooled prevalence of WPV was estimated at 45.0% (95% CI 32% to 58%). Types of violence included verbal abuse, verbal threats, physical assaults, sexual harassment, mobbing, bullying and discrimination. Perpetrators were patients, patients’ relatives, colleagues and supervisors. Nurses were the most studied HCWs category. WPV was found to affect both mental and physical health. Age, marital status, lower occupational position, substance abuse, shorter work experience and low support at work were the main socio-demographic and organisational factors associated with higher risk of WPV.
Conclusion
WPV prevalence is high among female HCWs, warranting a multilevel intervention approach to address and mitigate its impact. This approach should include targeted policies and individual-level strategies to create a safer work environment and prevent adverse effects on both HCWs and the broader healthcare system. Further research is needed to better document WPV in categories of HCWs other than nurses.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42022329574.
Keywords: Systematic Review, PUBLIC HEALTH, Risk Factors, Health & safety, MENTAL HEALTH, Meta-Analysis
Strengths and limitations of this study.
This study is one of the first to focus on the female healthcare workers (HCWs) population and to use cited methods for a systematic review.
The review included 28 peer-reviewed studies published in reputable databases from 20 countries, providing a broader picture of the subject.
The review explored a wide range of workplace violence types, in different categories of female HCWs.
The review highlights not only the prevalence of workplace violence, but also its correlates and consequences.
The prevalence of workplace violence in female HCWs was not indicated in all studies and there is a need for more studies in different countries on categories of female HCWs other than nurses.
Introduction
Workplace violence (WPV) is defined by the WHO as ‘the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, group, or community, resulting in, or having a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, death and/or psychological or developmental harm or deprivation’.1 The management of all forms of WPV is a major public health challenge.2 Approximately one-third of all healthcare workers (HCWs) have experienced WPV.3 Compared with other working populations in the USA, social support workers and hospital HCWs are second only to taxi drivers in terms of their vulnerability to WPV.4 Throughout Europe, a higher risk of third-party violence is reported in the healthcare sector and female HCWs are the most likely to experience violence.5
According to the International Labour Organization, International Council of Nurses, WPV may be classified into two types: physical and non-physical violence.2 Examples of physical violence include beating, choking, pushing, slapping, kicking, grabbing, shooting, stabbing, sexual assault and other types of physical contact intended to injure or harm. Threats, sexual harassment, racial harassment, bullying/mobbing and verbal abuse are examples of non-physical (or psychological) violence that can be perpetrated by a variety of people in the workplace. According to the WHO, verbal abuse (58%) is the most prevalent form of non-physical violence, followed by threats (33%) and sexual harassment (12%) among HCWs.6
Female HCWs have a unique status and function in public health and healthcare because they make up a significant part of the healthcare workforce with systematic differences in gender distribution by occupation.7 George et al have attributed women’s susceptibility to WPV to gender power disparities.8 In most countries, female health workers are over-represented in the nursing and midwifery professions while male workers make up the majority of physicians, dentists and pharmacists.7 Female workers are specifically vulnerable to WPV because of their lower status.8 9
Many researchers have carried out in-depth investigations of WPV among nurses, and others have explored and compared WPV risk factors among doctors and nurses in healthcare settings.10 However, these groups of healthcare personnel are not the only ones who can become WPV victims.11 According to the International Classification of Health Workers, HCWs are not limited to health professionals, but also include health associate professionals, personal care workers in health services and health management and support personnel.12 Nursing homes, home care settings, clinics, pharmacies and other places where HCWs provide any type of service can all be the scene of WPV.
To our knowledge, no systematic review has yet estimated the prevalence of WPV in female HCWs of different occupational categories and analysed associated factors. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesise studies that investigate the factors associated with WPV in different occupational categories of female HCWs and its impact on their health.
Methods
Design
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard approach 2020 checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of each included study.13 14 The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
This review used the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomena of Interest and Design, Evaluation and Research) framework for its inclusion criteria, which were as follows:
Sample: The target population was to be female HCWs in all countries (all or specific professional categories, including health professionals, health associate professionals, personal care workers in health services and health management and support personnel). Female health students were included, based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s classification of medical and nursing students as HCWs, as well as the fact that their clinical years in medical, dentistry or nursing school required them to work in a healthcare setting.
Phenomena of interest: Studies focused on WPV among HCWs with findings about women. WPV included physical violence (such as beating, choking, pushing, slapping, kicking, grabbing, shooting, stabbing, sexual assault and other types of physical contact intended to injure or harm) and non-physical violence (such as threats, sexual harassment, racial harassment, bullying/mobbing and verbal abuse).
Design: Observational (cross-sectional or cohort studies).
Evaluation: The study evaluated the associated risks of WPV and its impact on health in female HCWs.
Research type: Qualitative or mixed-method studies could be included.
Studies had to be published in peer-reviewed journals, with full text available in English and published between 1 January 2010 and 1 March 2022. Any articles that did not meet the above criteria were excluded. The date limitation was intended to focus on more recent evidence.
Data sources and search strategy
Published studies were retrieved from the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. We retrieved 26 articles from a previous larger scoping review we conducted that focused on the health of HCWs. In this scoping review, we also used social science databases. We found that PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science largely retrieved papers from the scoping review. As detailed in online supplemental file 1, the search used the combination of the following concepts and terms in Medical Subject Headings: ‘Occupation’, ‘Violence’ and ‘Occupational Health’. The third concept was added to limit results to occupational-related violence, part of occupational health and exclude home-related violence. The reference lists of the obtained papers were manually reviewed to include other studies related to violence among female HCWs.
Selection of articles
The retrieved articles were first selected by two independent review authors (M-EPA and C-AV) based on abstracts and titles, after duplicates were removed. A second selection was realised based on the full text. Where there were conflicts, a meeting with the reviewers was held to reach a consensus.
Extraction grid
A Google Form extraction grid was created to collect data systematically. It included the following sections:
The article: digital object identifiers, year of study, first author surname, journal of publication, full study title and country of study.
The study details: design of the study, and objectives.
The descriptive results:
Population studied: Both men and women or women only, sample size and percentage of women.
Professional categories: detailed according to the International Classification of Health.12
Characteristics of WPV: types, perpetrators (including gender, if reported), risk factors.
Prevalence of WPV: by professional category (including specialty, if reported) and workplace (hospital, clinics, etc, including departments, if reported).
The two primary reviewers (M-EPA and C-AV). A third reviewer (LCC) double-checked and any notable differences were resolved by discussion.
Risk of bias in individual studies
The risk of bias of each study included in this systematic review was assessed independently by the two primary reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists15 for analytical cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies and cohort studies. If the two reviewers could not agree on whether a study should be included, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a consensus. The overall risk of bias for each included study was categorised as low risk of bias, some concern of bias or high risk of bias. The risk of publication bias was assessed by visual interpretation of funnel plots if at least 10 studies reporting the outcome could be identified.
Data synthesis
Each data outcome was synthesised, summarised and reported in a narrative way using tables and texts. This was done in accordance with the PRISMA statement (online supplemental file 2).
Besides, a meta-analysis was conducted using the Stata V.15.0 software. The meta-analysis was performed on the studies where prevalence of WPV for female HCWs was available. Data on the prevalence of WPV were represented as a proportion with 95% CIs. A random-effects model was used, and statistical significance was set at p<0.05 for all analyses. Heterogeneity was estimated visually in forest plots and statistically using I2 tests, as recommended by the Cochrane collaboration.16 We considered heterogeneity low if I2 was <25%, moderate if 25–50% and substantial if >50%. To examine heterogeneity, subgroup analysis was performed.
Patient and public involvement
There was no direct patient or public involvement in this review.
Results
Selection of articles
A total of 561 articles were retrieved from the search strategies. There were 163 in PubMed, 185 in Scopus and 187 in Web of Science. To enhance comprehensiveness, we included 23 articles from a previous scoping review and 3 additional references from a meta-analysis obtained through a primary search that were not present in the initial database. After removing duplicates and excluding articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 28 articles were included for extraction. The exclusive screening and acceptance process is detailed in the flow chart figure 1.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart for selection of articles to include in the systematic review. WPV, workplace violence.
Critical appraisal and quality assessment of articles
We have annexed the quality score of all included studies in online supplemental file 3. All qualitative studies fulfilled the checklist with a low risk of bias. Two cross-sectional studies presented moderate scores. None article was excluded based on quality score. This ensures that all selected studies, regardless of their quality score, contribute to the comprehensiveness and robustness of the analysis.
Characteristics of included studies
Through the 28 studies included in this review, sample sizes varied from 7 to 12 944 participants and study locations covered 20 countries (see detailed characteristics in table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of the 28 studies included in the literature review.
| Study characteristics | No. of studies |
| Design | Cross-sectional=27Cohort=1 |
| Type | Quantitative=24Qualitative=4 |
| Healthcare workers category included | Nurses=13HCWs in general=8Physicians=3Pharmacists=1Paramedics=1Elder-care workers=1Chiropractors=1Medical students=1Doctors and medical students combined=1 |
| Location | China=5USA=2Australia=3Brazil=2Turkey=2Italy=3Austria=1Denmark=1Ethiopia=1Germany=1Ghana=1Greece=1Mexico=1Norway=1Portugal=1Saudi Arabia=1Sri Lanka=1Switzerland=1Taiwan=1 |
| Types of workplace violence | Physical: physical violence in general (no specific type was analysed).Non-physical: verbal abuse, threats, sexual harassment, bullying. |
HCWhealthcare workers
Overview
This review identified the prevalence of WPV (globally and according to the professional category of female HCWs) and focus on different factors associated with WPV against female HCWs: (1) socio-demographic factors, (2) organisational climate, and (3) workstation, (4) perpetrators of WPV and (5) impact on health.
The review found that non-physical violence was the most common type of WPV, with verbal abuse being the most prevalent form, reported in 52–98.3%. Other forms of violence identified included threats, physical assaults, sexual harassment, mobbing, bullying and discrimination. Some studies reported a higher prevalence of sexual violence compared with physical violence,17 while contradictory findings were reported elsewhere.18 Inappropriate sexual behaviours, including sexual harassment and sexism/gender inequality, were also reported by chiropractors.19
Prevalence of WPV
Using a random-effects meta-analysis of 16 studies, the pooled prevalence of WPV among female HCWs was estimated at 45.0% (95% CI 32% to 58%), varying widely between 9.0% (95% CI 6% to 11%) in Portugal20 and 92.0% (95% CI 87% to 95%) in Italy.21 These results are visualised in a forest plot (figure 2). For heterogeneity, we see that I2=99.8%, demonstrating severe heterogeneity among the included studies. To evaluate publication bias related to the meta-analysis of WPV, a funnel plot was created (figure 3). Egger’s test for a regression intercept resulted in a p value of 0.175, indicating no evidence of publication bias.
Figure 2. Random effect model forest plot for WPV among female healthcare workers. WPV, workplace violence.
Figure 3. Publication bias funnel plot for workplace violence among female healthcare workers.
Prevalence of WPV according to the professional category of female HCWs
Across studies included in this analysis, five categories of female HCWs were identified, including nurses, doctors, pharmacists, allied health professionals (such as paramedics, elder-care workers, medical technologists and nursing technicians), as well as other roles including administrative staff, security staff and medical students. Within these groups, the prevalence of WPV varied significantly. Among doctors, WPV the prevalence ranged from 31.8% to 81.1%, as reported in two studies.18 22 Among nurses, the prevalence ranged from 25.45% to 100%, based on different studies1018 23,28 while for pharmacists, it was reported at 35%.29 The reported prevalence for allied health professionals ranged from 2.7% to 72.1% for nursing technicians, 35% to 42% for paramedics, 11.9% among elder-care workers30 and 62.8% for medical technologists.18 Among other staff categories, the prevalence was reported at 36.3% among students,31 43.4% among administrative staff18 and 41.8% among security staff.17
Factors associated with WPV against female HCWs
Socio-demographic factors
Most included quantitative studies (13/25 (52%)) reported an association between being a female HCW and an increased risk of WPV.1721,23 29 31 Young age (<40 years) was associated with an increased risk of physical violence, verbal abuse and sexual harassment in female nurses.23 27 36 On the conversely, older nurses (≥56 years) in Australia were more likely to report occupational violence and aggression.10 Marital status (being single, separated or widowed) was associated with sexual harassment (53.9%) and verbal abuse (75%) among nurses in Ghana.23 However, bullying and mobbing were common among married operating room nurses in China.33
Organisational climate
Organisational climate or contextual factors that contribute to various types of WPV experienced by female HCWs encompass several dimensions. These include: low occupational position,23 night-shift work (67.1%),25 extended waiting time (98.5%),38 patients’ current health status.23 25 27 33 36 38 Up to 10 years of professional experience in nursing and contract employment type (73.5%), and low social support at work (83.1%) were also identified to be associated with WPV.23 27 Physical violence, threats, micro-aggression, gender discrimination and sexual harassment faced by female doctors were all associated with,35 as well as a medical culture in which medicine is perceived to be a man’s job.22 In the USA Bakken et al highlighted marital status (6.0%) as a basis for higher incidences of discrimination and harassment for pharmacists.29 Other factors included long working hours, the state of patients and call volume among paramedics in Australia37 and low occupational position for students in Germany.31
Workstation
For nurses working in the emergency units, WPV prevalence ranged from 40.6% to 53.9%.36 38 According to Fute et al, the odds of violence against nurses in the emergency department in Southern Ethiopia were roughly four times higher than in the outpatient department (OPD) (Ajusted Odds-Ratio (AOR)=4.3, 95% CI (2.44 to 7.50)).36 WPV prevalence was 40.6% in general inpatient wards in Greece38 and twice as high compared with outpatient nurses (AOR=2.1, 95% CI (1.98 to 3.42)).36 The prevalence range of reported verbal and sexual harassment was 16.7–17.9% in critical care units, 18.1–20.5% in OPD, 35.9–44.4% in medical-surgical units and 20.8–25.6% in special units.23 Regarding hospital characteristics, WPV were frequently reported in tertiary hospitals33 and in public hospitals (29.9–47.8%).17 36 No workstation variable was identified as a risk factor for doctors, emergency unit among paramedics in Australia.37
Perpetrators of WPV
Patient relatives (12.0–70.5 %),23 25 38 patients (26.6–47.5 %)23 36 38 and colleagues and supervisors (2.4–54.9%) were reported as WPV perpetrators in nurses.25 38 Sexual harassment23 against nurses was perpetrated by physicians (54.9%). WPV in elder-care workers were mostly colleagues (71.7%), followed by direct supervisor/manager (19.7%), clients (9.4%), top management (7.6%), subordinates (5.0%), relatives of clients (4.7%) and colleagues from a different ward (2.5%).30 The source of harassment for female students already in their clinical year was mostly male superiors (supervisors, teachers), only 12% were patients. Perpetrators in the included studies were (40–70%) men.
Impact on health
Most nurses reported that WPV had impacted their mental health in various ways. As a result of WPV, nurses experienced anger (76%), psychological stress (72%), disappointment (69%), loss of job satisfaction (60%), fear (50%), depression (22%), loss of self-esteem (16%),38 anxiety, shame, emotional and sleep disorders and overall poor mental health.23 25 27 Female doctors reported heightened stress responses, erosion of the recipients’ sense of confidence and long-term health deficits.39 Physical injuries such as traumatic joint/ligaments and muscle/tendon injury (43%), wounds, laceration and amputations (27%), musculoskeletal (5%), fracture (5%) and mental disorders (11%) were reported due to the high rates of physical assaults on paramedics.37 WPV in elder-care workers resulted in major depressive episodes.30
More findings are detailed in onlinesupplemental files 4 5.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive systematic assessment of WPV that has examined the prevalence, associated factors and consequences of WPV among female HCWs. This review included 28 peer-reviewed studies and used the most widely sourced evidence from reputable databases. Violence against female HCWs has been documented at alarmingly high rates across studies, ranging from 2% to 98.3%. A global systematic review conducted on WPV against physician and nurses that included 22 peer-reviewed articles found that physicians were more likely to face physical violence, while nurses were more likely to experience sexual harassment.40 This review highlights the variability in WPV prevalence across different professional categories of female HCWs, underscoring the need for targeted interventions tailored to specific roles within the healthcare sector.
Previous reviews highlighted gender as a predictor of WPV and nurses as being at a higher risk of WPV.41 42 Medical workers were more vulnerable to WPV than non-medical staff, still vulnerable to physical violence.42 This review added to the knowledge by highlighting the prevalence of the WPV in understudied categories of female HCWs such as doctors, pharmacists, allied health professionals (paramedics, elder-care workers, chiropractors, medical technologists and nursing technicians) and others (administrative, clerical, security and medical students) across five continents.
Verbal violence is usually the first stage, that can either progress to physical violence or be contained. This may explain why verbal violence was the most common form of violence in this review and is also consistent with previous studies.43 44 Nurses have received more attention in the study of WPV than the other workers mentioned above (43.3%).1023,28 33 36 38 45 In addition, nurses consistently reported the highest incidence of WPV events in the reviewed studies, both in those focusing just on nurses and those involving the entire healthcare workforce. This could be because nurses are generally accessible to both patients and visitors. They are also the first contact point for patients, making them potential victims. This is also supported by other studies.43 48 49 On the contrary, one of the included studies found that physicians had a higher rate of WPV than any other group of female HCWs.17 This may be due to the fact that doctors generally work alone, whereas nurses work in groups, an important factor in the development of aggression.18
Nursing technicians were another category of female HCWs with a high prevalence of WPV,32 although they were mostly grouped with nurses and, to the best of our knowledge, not separately studied. Another group of HCWs at risk for WPV were female medical technologists and paramedics. The female HCWs with the lowest prevalence of WPV were elder-care workers and pharmacists. The explanation for the low prevalence among pharmacists is unclear, but it could be hypothesised that have limited contact with patients and there may be less and indirect emotional interaction between them (delivering treatment) compared with nurses and other HCWs.
In this systematic review, a wide range of WPV experienced by female HCWs was identified, including physical, verbal, bullying, physical assault, threats, sexual harassment and psychological violence. These forms of violence can have significant impacts on the well-being and professional satisfaction of female HCWs. They contribute to stress, anxiety, depression and physical injuries, leading to absenteeism, decreased job satisfaction and reduced quality of patient care. Verbal violence was the most commonly reported type of WPV across studies, followed by sexual harassment, bullying and psychological violence. This is consistent with the findings of Liu et al that verbal abuse was the most common type of violence against female HCWs.44 Sexual harassment has been reported among female nurses and medical students,50 which is extremely harmful and requires immediate attention. In our review, physical violence was examined as a group of acts of violence, with no special attention given to any type and it was as common as sexual harassment. This may be important for future studies as WHO reports that more than one-third of HCWs experience physical abuse at some point in their careers.3
This systematic review identified several factors associated with WPV against female HCWs, categorised into socio-demographic, organisational and workstation correlates of WPV. In terms of socio-demographics, age and marital status were consistently reported by most studies. This is consistent with a previous systematic review.49 Although a study in China observed a higher tendency among married women,33 single or separated female HCWs had more incidence on WPV.23 Furthermore, younger nurses also reported a higher incidence of WPV than older ones, which could be due to the longer work experience of older nurses (and better training in the management of difficult situations with patients). Regarding the organisational climate, among several recurring factors, low occupational position/power imbalance, which exists in the healthcare setting, was widely connected to many incidences of non-physical violence; as well as years of experience, long waiting times, overcrowding, shifts, lack of security, medical culture in which medicine is perceived male-dominated environment among others. In terms of the workstation, studies have consistently associated emergency departments with WPV, followed by psychiatric settings and outpatient facilities. This is similar to
previous studies.44 51 This could be due to the critical need for treatment and the current condition of the patients, but also to a shortage of HCW in emergency departments—coupled with overcrowding of these units, which become entry care points even for non-urgent cases. The psychiatric unit admits persons in a condition of impaired mental well-being; this could explain the high occurrence of violence. Adequate male/female ratios and increased security should be ensured in these high-risk units.
Patients and their relatives or friends were the common perpetrators of violence.23 25 36 38 This is in line with one study conducted by Alsaleem et al.52 On the other hand, superiors and physicians were frequently identified as perpetrators of sexual harassment. In most cases, the perpetrators were men. As a result, these factors need to be taken into account when establishing rules and regulations on the behaviour of patients, families or colleagues. These measures would provide female HCWs with a sense of security and psychological support.
The health impacts of WPV on female HCWs are significant and multifaceted, discussed in this review. Physical and mental impacts have been documented, with the latter being more prevalent. Physical injuries were reported among various categories of HCWs, including paramedics,37 nurses, security personnel and other HCWs.34 46 Mental impacts include psychological stress, anxiety due to perceptions of promiscuity attached to the nursing profession, shame, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); some affected workers stated that they sought medical treatment. Consequently, some HCWs reported reduced work productivity, lack of motivation and hyper-vigilance. Increased use of sick leave and time off work, as well as consideration of giving up their careers or eventually quitting were reported as a result of WPV. Given that WPV has a significant impact on the lives of HCWs, it is obvious that the quality of service provided by HCWs will suffer as well; thus, health management must pay close attention to factors that make the workplace hostile to HCWs.
It is also worth noting how only a few HCWs reported WPV. This was largely attributable to an ineffective system for handling complaints, so HCWs chose to ignore and accept it as part of their job. Training on WPV de-escalation, evidence-based mitigation strategies, effective workplace reporting systems and psychological support would be beneficial to HCWs.
Limitations
This review has several limitations. It exclusively focused on female HCWs experiences of WPV. The prevalence of WPV in female HCWs was not indicated in all studies. The use of occupation health concept in the search strategy was meant to exclude home-related violence but could have excluded some studies still related to WPV. We only included large and general databases and we did not include specialised qualitative databases. Qualitative studies were few in the review and may have failed to thoroughly explore the nature of the violence from the HCWs’ perspective, an issue that quantitative studies typically do not allow for extensive analysis. Furthermore, most studies were cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies are also needed to describe changes with time of WPV, and to better understand its consequences for individuals affected. Lastly, there is a need for more studies in different countries on categories of female HCWs other than nurses.
Conclusion
This systematic review found a high prevalence of WPV among female HCWs. It also advances our comprehension of the extent to which female HCWs experienced WPV at their workplace. WPV was documented to have a detrimental impact on female HCWs’ mental and physical health, resulting in sick leave, absenteeism and decreased productivity. Immediate actions such as targeted policy development, WPV de-escalation training, as well as management communication and support, must be implemented to address WPV in the health sector and prevent its negative impact on both HCWs and the whole healthcare system. More research is also needed to better document the prevalence of WPV among other groups of female HCWs other than nurses.
supplementary material
Acknowledgements
We thank the MNH Foundation for their support of this project, especially Philippe Denormandie and Julia Fernandez.
Footnotes
Funding: This study was funded by MNH foundation (Grant no: NA).
Prepub: Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079396).
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.
Ethics approval: This study uses scientific articles to conduct a systematic review. Following the Helsinki declarations, no human or animal species was involved in this review; hence this work did not require ethical approval.
Data availability free text: Extracted data are available on request to the corresponding author. Search strategy and key finding tables are available in appendices.
Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Contributor Information
May-Elizabeth Pere-ere Ajuwa, Email: mayelizabethajuwa@gmail.com.
Clair-Antoine Veyrier, Email: clair-antoine.veyrier@aphp.fr.
Lorraine Cousin Cabrolier, Email: lorraine.cousin@aphp.fr.
Olivier Chassany, Email: olivier.chassany@aphp.fr.
Fabienne Marcellin, Email: fabienne.marcellin@inserm.fr.
Issifou Yaya, Email: issifou.yaya@aphp.fr.
Martin Duracinsky, Email: duracinsky.m@gmail.com.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
References
- 1.Ferris LE. World Report on Violence and Health. Can J Public Health. 2002;93:451. doi: 10.1007/BF03405037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.International Labour Organization. International Council of Nurses WHO and PSI Framework guidelines for addressing workplace violence in the health sector / joint programme on workplace violence in the health sector. 2002
- 3.World Health Organization Preventing violence against health workers. 2022. https://www.who.int/activities/preventing-violence-against-health-workers Available.
- 4.National Institue for Occupational Safety and Health Occupational violence. CDC | Centers Dis. Control Prev. 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/violence/ Available.
- 5.Milczarek M, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work . Workplace Violence and Harassment – A European Picture. Publications Office; 2010. Available. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.World Health Organization Violence and harassment. 2020. https://www.who.int/tools/occupational-hazards-in-health-sector/violence-harassment Available.
- 7.Boniol M, McIsaac M, Xu L, et al. World Health Organization; 2019. Gender equity in the health workforce: analysis of 104 countries; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- 8.George AS, McConville FE, de Vries S, et al. Violence against female health workers is tip of iceberg of gender power imbalances. BMJ. 2020;371:m3546. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3546. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Siller DH, Beck-Rabanser C, Hochleitner PDM, et al. “Not a Woman-Question, But a Power-Question”: A Qualitative Study of Third Parties on Psychological Violence in Academic Medicine. Workplace Health Saf. 2021;69:41–9. doi: 10.1177/2165079920938001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Shea T, Sheehan C, Donohue R, et al. Occupational Violence and Aggression Experienced by Nursing and Caring Professionals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2017;49:236–43. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Somani R, Muntaner C, Hillan E, et al. A Systematic Review: Effectiveness of Interventions to De-escalate Workplace Violence against Nurses in Healthcare Settings. Saf Health Work. 2021;12:289–95. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2021.04.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.WHO Health Workforce (HWF) Classifying health workers: mapping occupations to the international standard classification. 2019. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/classifying-health-workers Available.
- 13.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ma L-L, Wang Y-Y, Yang Z-H, et al. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Military Med Res. 2020;7:7. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pinar T, Acikel C, Pinar G, et al. Workplace Violence in the Health Sector in Turkey: A National Study. J Interpers Violence. 2017;32:2345–65. doi: 10.1177/0886260515591976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sun P, Zhang X, Sun Y, et al. Workplace Violence against Health Care Workers in North Chinese Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:96. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14010096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Innes S, Maurice L, Lastella M, et al. Understanding Australian female chiropractors’ experiences of inappropriate patient sexual behaviour: a study using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Chiropr Man Therap. 2021;29:36. doi: 10.1186/s12998-021-00394-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Norton P, Costa V, Teixeira J, et al. Prevalence and Determinants of Bullying Among Health Care Workers in Portugal. Workplace Health Saf. 2017;65:188–96. doi: 10.1177/2165079916666545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Cannavò M, La Torre F, Sestili C, et al. Work Related Violence As A Predictor Of Stress And Correlated Disorders In Emergency Department Healthcare Professionals. Clin Ter. 2019;170:e110–23. doi: 10.7417/CT.2019.2120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Najjar I, Socquet J, Gayet-Ageron A, et al. Prevalence and forms of gender discrimination and sexual harassment among medical students and physicians in French-speaking Switzerland: a survey. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e049520. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Boafo IM, Hancock P, Gringart E. Sources, incidence and effects of non-physical workplace violence against nurses in Ghana. Nurs Open. 2016;3:99–109. doi: 10.1002/nop2.43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li M, Liu J, Zheng J, et al. The relationship of workplace violence and nurse outcomes: Gender difference study on a propensity score matched sample. J Adv Nurs. 2020;76:600–10. doi: 10.1111/jan.14268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Pien L-C, Cheng Y, Cheng W-J. Internal workplace violence from colleagues is more strongly associated with poor health outcomes in nurses than violence from patients and families. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75:793–800. doi: 10.1111/jan.13887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Pinar R, Ucmak F. Verbal and physical violence in emergency departments: a survey of nurses in Istanbul, Turkey. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20:510–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03520.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Vasconcellos IRR de, Griep RH, Lisboa MTL, et al. Violence in daily hospital nursing work. Acta paul enferm. 2012;25:40–7. doi: 10.1590/S0103-21002012000900007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Zhang L, Wang A, Xie X, et al. Workplace violence against nurses: A cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;72:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bakken BK, Gaither CA, Doucette WR, et al. An intersectional review of discrimination and harassment experiences in pharmacy: Findings from the 2019 National Pharmacist Workforce Survey. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2021;61:522–32. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2021.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rugulies R, Madsen IEH, Hjarsbech PU, et al. Bullying at work and onset of a major depressive episode among Danish female eldercare workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38:218–27. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Jendretzky K, Boll L, Steffens S, et al. Medical students’ experiences with sexual discrimination and perceptions of equal opportunity: a pilot study in Germany. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:56. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-1952-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Pai DD, Lautert L, Souza SBC de, et al. Violence, Burnout and Minor Psychiatric Disorders in Hospital Work. Rev esc enferm USP. 2015;49:457–64. doi: 10.1590/S0080-623420150000300014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yang Y-M, Zhou L-J. Workplace bullying among operating room nurses in China: A cross-sectional survey. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2021;57:27–32. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Acquadro Maran D, Cortese CG, Pavanelli P, et al. Gender differences in reporting workplace violence: a qualitative analysis of administrative records of violent episodes experienced by healthcare workers in a large public Italian hospital. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e031546. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Al-Surimi K, Al Omar M, Alahmary K, et al. Prevalence of Workplace Bullying and Its Associated Factors at a Multi-Regional Saudi Arabian Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13:1905–14. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S265127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Fute M, Mengesha ZB, Wakgari N, et al. High prevalence of workplace violence among nurses working at public health facilities in Southern Ethiopia. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:9. doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0062-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Maguire BJ. Violence against ambulance personnel: a retrospective cohort study of national data from Safe Work Australia. Public Health Res Pr . 2018;28 doi: 10.17061/phrp28011805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fafliora E, Bampalis VG, Zarlas G, et al. Workplace violence against nurses in three different Greek healthcare settings. WOR. 2016;53:551–60. doi: 10.3233/WOR-152225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Periyakoil VS, Chaudron L, Hill EV, et al. Common Types of Gender-Based Microaggressions in Medicine. Acad Med. 2020;95:450–7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Chakraborty S, Mashreky SR, Dalal K. Violence against physicians and nurses: a systematic literature review. J Public Health (Berl) 2022;30:1837–55. doi: 10.1007/s10389-021-01689-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Kumari A, Ranjan P, Sarkar S, et al. Identifying Predictors of Workplace Violence Against Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2022;26:207–24. doi: 10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_164_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Yusoff HM, Ahmad H, Ismail H, et al. Contemporary evidence of workplace violence against the primary healthcare workforce worldwide: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health. 2023;21:82. doi: 10.1186/s12960-023-00868-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.El sharkawy SA, Mondoor WR. Violence among Female Health Care Workers. Egypt J Occup Med. 2021;45:199–216. doi: 10.21608/ejom.2021.193275. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Liu J, Gan Y, Jiang H, et al. Prevalence of workplace violence against healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2019;76:927–37. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2019-105849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Adams EA, Darj E, Wijewardene K, et al. Perceptions on the sexual harassment of female nurses in a state hospital in Sri Lanka: a qualitative study. Glob Health Action. 2019;12:1560587. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2018.1560587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Levin PF, Hewitt JB, Misner ST. Insights of nurses about assault in hospital-based emergency departments. Image J Nurs Sch. 1998;30:249–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1998.tb01300.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Ruíz-González KJ, Pacheco-Pérez LA, García-Bencomo MI, et al. Mobbing perception among Intensive Care Unit nurses. Enferm Intensiva (Engl Ed) 2020;31:113–9. doi: 10.1016/j.enfi.2019.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Dadfar M, Lester D. Workplace violence (WPV) in healthcare systems. Nurs Open. 2021;8:527–8. doi: 10.1002/nop2.713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Njaka S, Edeogu OC, Oko CC, et al. Work place violence (WPV) against healthcare workers in Africa: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2020;6:e04800. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Kahsay WG, Negarandeh R, Dehghan Nayeri N, et al. Sexual harassment against female nurses: a systematic review. BMC Nurs. 2020;19:58. doi: 10.1186/s12912-020-00450-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Yenealem DG, Woldegebriel MK, Olana AT, et al. Violence at work: determinants & prevalence among health care workers, northwest Ethiopia: an institutional based cross sectional study. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2019;31:8. doi: 10.1186/s40557-019-0288-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Alsaleem S, Alsabaani A, Alamri R, et al. Violence towards healthcare workers: A study conducted in Abha City, Saudi Arabia. J Fam Community Med . 2018;25:188. doi: 10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_170_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]