TABLE 3.

Factors associated with compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress

	Study	Compassion satisfaction	Burnout	Secondary traumatic stress
1.	(Jarrad & Hammad, 2020)	Number of dependents: r = −2.30, p < .05 Sleep hours = 0.212, p < .05	Days off: r = .228, p < .05	Appetite: r = 179, p < .05
2.	(Jang et al., 2016)	Age F = 7.198, p <.001 Marital status: t = 11.102, p =.001 Educational level: F = 22.415, p <.001 Position: F = 25.350, p < .001 Year of Experience: F = 7.011, p < .001 Individual organization fit: F = 79.399, p < .001 Turnover intention: t = 17.808, p < .001	Age: F = 5.070, p = .002 Marital Status: t = 8.857, p = .003 Educational level: F = 11.246, p <.001 Position: F = 24.263, p <.001 Years of Experience: F = 3.634, p = .013 Individual organization fit: F = 47.936, p < .001 Turnover intention: t = 19.743, p < .001	Educational level: F = 3.189, p = .043 Position: F = 10.920, p = .001 Individual organization fit: F = 5.417, p = .021
3.	(Wu et al., 2016)	Educational level: X 2=6.871, p = .032 (US) Cohesive teamwork environment: X 2 = 10.51, p = .005 Work more hours and experience 3 or more patients’ deaths X 2 =8.042, p = .045	Depression or headache: X2=13.659, p = .000 (US) Stressors related personal finance: X2=27.334, p = .000 (US), X2=8.646, p = .003 (CA) Encounter traumatic death: X2=7.894, p = .005 Sacrifices personal and psychological needs: X2=31.541, p = .000(US), X2=15.047, p = .003 (CA) Cohesive teamwork environment: X2=12.928, p = .002	Age: X2=8.094, p = .017 (US) Educational level: X2=6.871, p = .032 Years of experience: X2=6.117, p = .047(US) Depression and headache: X2=9.969, p = .002 (US) Stressors related personal finance: X2=38.198, p = .000 (US), X2=13.542, p = .000 (CA) Encounter traumatic death: X2=3.887, p = .049 Sacrifices personal and psychological needs: X2=45.276, p = .000 (US), X2=9.27, p = .002 (CA) Cohesive teamwork environment X2=10.546, p = .005
4.	(Yu et al., 2016)	Empathy: b = 0.209, p = .000 Social support: b = 0.176, p = .000 Personality traits (5 variables) Coping Style: b = 0.370, p = .000(Active) b = −0.145, p = .015(passive)	Setting: T=−2.032, p = .043 Empathy: b=−0.094, p = .000 Social support: b=−0.111, p = .000 Personality traits (5 variables) Coping Style: b=−0.126, p = .000 (Active) b = 0.287, p = .000 (passive)	Setting: T=−3.101, p =.002 Empathy: b = 0.209, p =.000 Social support: b = 0.209, p = .000 Personality traits (5 variables) Coping Style: b = 0.260, p = .000(Passive)
5.	(J. Duarte & Pinto‐Gouveia, 2017)	Age: r = .19, p < .05 Year of experience: r = .1, p < .05 Perspective taking: r = 0.31, p < .05 Empathetic concerns: r = .38, p < .05 Personal distress: r = −0.29, p <.05 Self‐compassion: r = .35, p < .05 Psychological inflexibility: r = .22, p < .05	Age: r = −.14, p < .05 Years of experience r = .19, p < .05 Perspective taking: r = .15, p < .01 Personal distress: r = .21, p < .05 Self‐compassion: r = −.51, p < .05 Psychological inflexibility: r = .47, p < .05	Years of experience: r = .14, p < .05 Empathetic concerns: r = .18, p < .01 Self‐compassion: r = −0.24, p < .05 Psychological inflexibility: r = .36, p < .05
6.	(Al‐Majid et al., 2018)			Position: p = .006
7.	(Arimon‐Pages et al., 2019)	Transfer to another unit OR (95%CI) = 3.1(1.4–6.6) Choose nursing profession again OR (95%CI) = 3.1(1.4–6.6)	Transfer to another unit OR (95%CI) = 3.7(1.9–7.5)	Transfer to another unit OR (95%CI) = 3.2 (1.9–5.3)
8.	(Wells‐English et al., 2019)	Turnover intention: r = −0.602, p < .01	Turnover intention: r = −.732, p < .01	Turnover intention: r = −0.291, p < .01

Abbreviations: b, beta coefficient (predictor); F, one‐way analysis of variance; OR, odd ratio; P, significant level; r, person correlation; t, t test; X ², chi‐square.