Table 1: Characteristics and antecedent factors of type II and type III studies of workplace violence among doctors
Author, year, country	Sample size, years examined, study design, type of violence	Antecedent factors	CASP grade	Summary risk of bias
1. AbuAlRub and Al Khawaldeh, 2014, Jordan	n=521, 2013–2014, descriptive/exploratory research design, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Factors related to administration (ie, no assertive legislations, ineffective solutions for violent incidents, long shift hours, short level of staff, inappropriate work environments, lack of sources provided) - Factors related to staff (ie, lack of communication, poor quality care, lack of proper training giving rise to inexperienced staff) - Factors related to their patients and families (ie, increased level of anxiety and tension, notions of poor-quality health care, life stress, no/lack of health insurance) - Factors related to security (ie, inexperienced or simply unqualified security staff, increased traffic of public and visitors' access, uncontrolled visiting time)	7	Low risk
2. Baykan et al, 2015, Turkey	n=597, 2012, descriptive study, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Environmental factors - Attitudes of politician/managers, media and uneducated locals - Excessive demands of patients - Patients using doctors as their scapegoat, immediate resolvent	10	Low risk
3. da Silva et al, 2015, Brazil	n=2940, unspecified, cross-sectional, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Depressive symptoms and major depression (ie, more prone to react when faced with complaints or aggressive behavior) - Patients being disappointed from having high expectations of service	8	Low risk
4. Hahn et al, 2012, Switzerland	n=2495, 2007, cross-sectional survey, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Those trained in aggression management - Professionals working with patients over the age of 65 - Professionals who work in emergency rooms, outpatient rooms, intensive care units, recovery rooms, anesthesia, intermediate care and step-down units	9	Low risk
5. Heponiemi et al, 2014, Finland	n=1515, 2006–2010, cohort study, type III	> Worker on worker violence: - Decrease in job control (ie, lack of opportunities to learn and improve on skills, lack a variety of tasks) > Patient on worker violence: - No direct measures like no metal detectors for metal weapons, no security dog teams, no cameras and security personnel all-in-all to decrease/prevent WPV	9	Low risk
6. Hills and Joyce, 2014, Australia	n=9449, 2010–2011, cross-sectional descriptive, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Patient with a medical condition or undergoing psychosocial circumstances - Patient with cognitive impairment or arousal, frustration or distress > Worker on worker violence: - Less experienced clinicians	9	Low risk
7. Kitaneh and Hamdan, 2012, Jerusalem	n=271, 2011, cross-sectional, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Less experience, low level of education, under-reporting due to fear of consequences, lack of management support	9	Low risk
8. Mantzouranis et al, 2015, Greece	n=175, 2013, descriptive study using questionnaire, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Long wait times - Patient with drug and alcohol abuse - Patient with psychiatric disorders - Disobedience of patients, relatives and friends - Lack of sufficient personnel on site	9	Low risk
9. Pompeii et al, 2015, USA	n=2098, unspecified, descriptive, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Altered mental status, behavioral issues - Patient with pain/medication - Patient dissatisfied with care	7	Low risk
10. Vezyridis, Samoutis, and Mayrikiou, 2015, Cyprus	n=220, 2012–2013, cross-sectional, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Altered mental status, behavioral issues - Patient with pain/medication - Patient dissatisfied with care	9	Low risk
11. Vorderwulbeck, et al, 2015, Germany	n=831, 2013, questionnaire-based, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Patient who uses alcohol - Patient who uses drugs - Patient with mental illness	8	Low risk
12. Wu et al, 2015, Taiwan	n=189, 2009, cross-sectional, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Vast increase in health services volume and so as a consequence, short consultations occur which in turn will anger patients - Safety climate (a protective factor for WPV that mediates the relationship between work-derived violence and negative consequences, job satisfaction and work engagement) - Excessive volume of physicians' job demands which can result to poor quality service leading to angered patients - Hospital administration needing to ensure enough health care staffing levels to prevent WPV	7	Unclear risk; used convenient sampling for recruitment may pose some bias
13. Zafar et al, 2016, Pakistan	n=179, 2013, cross-sectional, type II	> Patient on worker violence: - Mental health	10	Low risk