Measurement of compassion fatigue in animal health care professionals: a systematic review of available instruments and their content validity

Introduction: Compassion fatigue (CF) refers to emotional or physical exhaustion and emotional reactions resulting from prolonged exposure to traumatic events, commonly experienced by professionals in caregiving roles. CF is prevalent among healthcare professionals, including those in animal care. Several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were developed to measure CF, but their psychometric validity was not reviewed systematically. This study aims to identify and review the content validity of CF PROMs used in animal health care professionals.

Methods: Literature was searched in PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE (1973–2023). We included studies conducted in animal health care professionals, using a PROM to measure CF, reporting at least one psychometric property of this PROM, and published as original research. For each identified PROM, additional literature search was conducted to identify PROM development and content validation studies. Three independent reviewers evaluated the content validity of each PROM using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology and summarized the quality of evidence using a modified GRADE approach. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023433982) and results reported following PRISMA guidelines.

Results: Initially, 1709 studies were identified. After a double screening, 17 eligible studies were included. CF was measured using six different PROMs or their modified versions. Only one PROM specifically targeted animal health care professionals: the ProQOL-5 Veterinary Medicine Version. This and three other original CF PROMs were reviewed. For all PROMs, the quality of content validity was rated as insufficient due to deficiencies in the concept and items elicitation, inadequate target population representation, and inadequate details on cognitive interview procedures. The overall evidence quality was rated as low due to a limited number of PROM validation studies, poor methodological and reporting quality, and indirect result.

Discussion: There is a scarcity of studies examining CF within the target population, and the quality of evidence for content validity of the reviewed PROMs for CF measurement is currently low. CF definition and construct description in PROM development studies suffer from vagueness and seem inadequately reflected by the content of the reviewed PROMs. Further research with a robust methodology seems necessary to address the identified flows.

Systematic review registration: Measurement of compassion fatigue in people working with animals: protocol for a systematic review. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023433982. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023433982.

1 Introduction

Carla Joinson described the term Compassion Fatigue (CF) in 1992 and applied it to nurses. Joinson noted that behavioral signs of CF included chronic exhaustion, impatience, and a lack of joy in life (1). Figley introduced the term “secondary traumatic stress” (STS) to denote CF and characterized it as the “cost of caring” and “the emotional pain and exhaustion that occurs with a gradual onset that arises in some care providers when exposed to a suffering individual” (2). More recently, CF has been conceptualized as a multi-component construct including both burnout and secondary traumatic stress (3), bringing together various terms used in the field. CF and moral distress are examples of occupational mental health concerns that have been investigated in healthcare workers, but seldom in other professions with similar challenges, such as animal health care professionals (4–6).

Veterinary professionals and lab technicians that work with animals are particularly vulnerable to mental illness and suicide because of certain pressures such as euthanasia (4, 5, 7–11). Platt’s systematic review, titled “Suicidal behavior and psychosocial problems in veterinary surgeons” has uncovered numerous elements contributing to workplace stress within the veterinary field. These include extended working hours, deadline pressures, challenging interactions with clients, financial discussions with clients, delivering distressing news, experiencing moral and ethical dilemmas, maintaining an unbalanced work-life schedule, perfectionism, exposure to instances of animal abuse and euthanasia, and the transition from university to clinical practice (12). Euthanasia stress is a specific type of occupational stressor in animal care practice. Professionals directly involved in euthanasia exhibit elevated levels of work stress, diminished job satisfaction, increased turnover, and psychological distress (10). This phenomenon, known as the “caring-killing paradox,” highlights the unique stressors faced by these professionals due to the moral and emotional challenges of euthanizing animals they care for (13). Studies have indicated a correlation between the number of euthanized dogs and employee turnover, potentially associated with a decline in job satisfaction (14). Finally, euthanasia has been identified as an important component of CF (15). CF affects animal welfare and the 3R principle (replacement, reduction, refinement) in research (16), with limited control over euthanasia linked to lower quality of life in lab workers (17). Therefore, exploring CF in animal care workers is important.

This systematic review had two research objectives. The first objective was to identify the measures used for CF and its extent among animal health care professionals. The second objective was to assess the content validity of these measures, which is the most important psychometric property in the patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (18). Indeed, CF being a subjectively measured outcome, in most cases it is addressed using a PROM, i.e., a standardized questionnaire designed to gather information directly from patients regarding health outcomes, encompassing aspects such as symptoms, health-related quality of life, and functional status (19). This two-fold approach aimed to not only catalog the CF PROMs employed in the field but also delve into their psychometric validity.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Protocol and registration

The protocol of this systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42023433982. This study was conducted following the CRD’s guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in the health care (20).The results were reported according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (21).

2.2 Eligibility criteria

We included studies 1-conducted in animal health care professionals, 2-measuring the CF using a PROM, 3-assessing, and reporting at least one psychometric property of this PROM in the study sample, 4-published as original research articles in a peer-reviewed journal in English, German, French, Turkish, or Russian languages. All other studies and publication types were excluded.

2.2.1 Study screening and selection

A systematic literature search was performed for the period 1973–2023 in three databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. The research strategy consisted of free-text words to specify two search strings. The first string focused on terms related to animal-related occupations and CF, with a specific emphasis on PROM as a measurement tool. The second search strings terms are linked to psychometric properties. Both searched strings were developed by an experienced librarian in collaboration with two most experienced reviewers [SH, IGC].

The librarian imported the collected studies in the bibliography software EndNote 20 and removed the duplicates. Two independent reviewers [YB, AM] screened the records for eligibility in a two-step procedure: first based on the title and abstract, secondly, based on the full text. Rayyan application (22) was used in both screening step and helped compare the reviewers’ results, discuss discrepancies, and get consensual agreement. Two other reviewers [MTNN, IGC] managed weekly discussion sessions and cross-validated final article selection.

2.3 Data extraction and management

Data were extracted as defined in the protocol by two independent reviewers [YB, MTNN] and cross-checked by a third reviewer [IGC]. A particular attention was paid to the PROM identification and description (e.g., authors and publication year, version, number of dimensions and items, score calculation, cut-offs, and reporting).

2.3.1 Evaluation of content validity

The methodological quality in developing PROMs and ensuring content validity was assessed following the COSMIN manual (18). For this, additional literature search was conducted for each identified PROM and the PROM’s authors were contacted by email to ensure the search completeness.

According to the COSMIN manual (18), the evaluation of PROM development quality encompasses 35 criteria distributed across two domains: (1) the quality of PROM design, incorporating the concept elicitation study for item generation, and (2) the quality of the cognitive interview study to evaluate the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of PROM items. Each criterion received a rating on a four-point scale: ‘very good,’ ‘adequate,’ ‘doubtful,’ or ‘inadequate.’ An additional set of COSMIN criteria was employed to evaluate the methodological rigor of studies focusing on content validation. A comprehensive assessment, consisting of 31 standards, scrutinized studies that reported relevance, comprehensiveness, or comprehensibility as perceived by either patients or professionals corresponding to the PROM’s target group. Each standard underwent rating on a four-point scale: ‘very good,’ ‘adequate,’ ‘doubtful,’ or ‘inadequate.’

Total scores were computed for both segments of the PROM development study, namely the quality of PROM design and the quality of the pilot testing study, usually based on cognitive interviews. Additionally, total scores were determined for each aspect of the methodological quality in content validation studies, including relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. The scoring of each of these components was based on the lowest grade assigned to any evaluation criteria within that specific component (following the ‘the worst score counts’ principle) (18).

2.3.2 Evidence synthesis

Initially, the outcomes of the study on PROM development, the examination of content validity, and the evaluations provided by reviewers regarding PROM content were assessed based on the 10 established criteria for robust content validity [15]. Five of these criteria concern the PROM’s content relevance, one the comprehensiveness, and four the comprehensibility (18). Each criterion was scored as sufficient (+), insufficient (−), or indeterminate (?). The findings from the available studies were then qualitatively summarized and evaluated based on the established criteria, ensuring sound content validity (18). Finally, a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was employed to gauge the quality of evidence (23). Factors considered included the quality of the studies, the consistency of results across different studies, and the indirectness of evidence. The reviewers [YB, AM, MTNN] assessed the quality of evidence based on these factors, assuming high-quality evidence. Then, reviewers with the supervision of a fourth reviewer [IGC], downgraded the quality of evidence of PROMs one or two levels for each factor, if they are risk of bias, inconsistency, or indirectness.

3 Results

The literature search resulted in 1709 items. Following the elimination of duplicates, 1,399 records were considered in the first screening. Subsequently, during the second screening involving a comprehensive evaluation of 37 full-texts, 17 eligible articles were identified and reviewed (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA floe diagram of study selection.

3.1 Description of included studies

Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the included 17 studies. All studies have been conducted in high income countries, mostly in Australia. The sample size ranged between 60 and 1,445 participants of different occupations and specialties in animal care. Female participants were predominant (average sex ratio 80%) and the average age was around 40 years old. Most of the participants work in a clinical environment (64.7%), rather than research environment. The variation in the research objectives across studies but also in CF measures used presents a challenge in summarizing and comparing the study findings quantitatively (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Description of the included studies.

3.2 Description of identified CF measures

In total, six different PROMs or their versions for assessing CF were identified across the reviewed studies (Table 2). These PROMs are the Professional Quality of Life-Version 5 (ProQOL-5) (n = 12), the Compassion Fatigue Short Scale (CFSS)(n = 2), the compassion fatigue questionnaire (n = 2) and ProQOL-5 Veterinary Medicine Version (ProQOL-5-VMV) (n = 1). Conversely to its title, the CF questionnaire contains only one item dedicated to CF assessment. The CF is there defined as follows: “Compassion fatigue is a profound emotional and physical exhaustion that people in the caring professions can develop when they are unable to refuel and regenerate due to the nature of their work. CF is a normal occurrence and is commonly seen across many professions including, but not limited to, nurses, hospice workers, veterinarians and veterinary technicians, social workers, and laboratory animal caregivers.” and the item reads “Have you ever experienced compassion fatigue?,” with three response options: Yes, No, and Unsure. The other 29 items address the participant’s demographics, the influence of personality on CF, the nature of work, and coping mechanisms. Therefore, the CF questionnaire cannot be considered a PROM and was excluded from the second review of PROMs’ content validity.

Table 2

Table 2. Summary of the identified measures of compassion fatigue in animal care professionals studies.

A ProQOL-5 modified version (24) was neither considered as it was not developed specifically or independently on ProQOL-5 but rather shortened ProQOL-5 for administration-facilitating purposes and without proper development and validation studies. A translated in Italian ProQOL-5 version (25) was also omitted, since within the COSMIN framework, content validation takes precedence over cross-cultural validation of a PROM (26). It is assumed that the content validity of a validly translated version would be like that of original version. Both CFSS and ProQOL originated from the Compassion Fatigue Self-Test (CFST) (2). When a PROM is originated from an earlier version of the scale, COSMIN guidelines suggest evaluating the current PROM with its ancestor. In cases when PROM is adapted to be used in another target population than the original target population, it is crucial to reassess the content of both the adapted and the original version (18, 26) in case it was not done before. This procedure was followed to ensure whether adapted version represents the CF construct for the given target group. By assessing the original PROM (CFST) along with the adapted version (ProQOL), we were able to better capture the content of originally selected items and assess their relevance and comprehensiveness with respect to the theoretical foundations of CF construct features. Therefore, the CFST was included in the content validity assessment.

3.3 Construct definition and description of the reviewed PROMs

3.3.1 Compassion fatigue self-test (CFST)

The conceptualization of CF that underlines the CFST corresponds to “the natural consequent behaviors and emotions resulting from knowing about a traumatizing event experienced or suffered by a person” (2). Figley pioneered the development of a tool to assess CF, and the CFST for practitioners was introduced in his book “Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized” in 1995. The original CFST scores were based on data from 142 psychotherapy practitioners who participated in workshops on CF between 1992 and 1993. However, information about the characteristics of this sample and the study design is not available.

CFST was developed to introduce the concept of CF in workers with traumatized clients, establish a theoretical basis for assessing and treating compassion stress and fatigue, explain the difference between CF and Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), burnout, and other related phenomena, identify innovative methods for treating CF in therapists, and suggest methods for preventing CF. The CFST evaluates CF and job burnout (BO) using 40 items across two subscales: CF (23 items) and BO (17 items). The target population is trauma workers engaged with traumatized individuals regularly. Respondents rated the frequency of traits or situations concerning themselves on a scale from 1 (rarely/never) to 5 (very often). Scores on the CF subscale below 26 indicate extremely low risk, 27 to 30 suggest low risk, 31 to 35 indicate moderate risk, 36 to 40 indicate high risk, and scores of 41 or above indicate an extremely high risk of CF. On the burnout subscale, scores between 17 and 36 or less suggest extremely low risk, 37 to 50 suggest moderate risk, 51 to 75 suggest high risk, and 76 to 85 indicate extremely high risk of burnout (2). However, information about the development, amendment, and validation of this measure is not provided in the book chapters or other publications.

3.3.2 Compassion fatigue short scale (CFSS)

The CFSS is a shortened and revised version of the CFST (27). It was designed by Adams in 2006 for formal caregivers, specifically targeting first responders in clinical settings (28). CFSS is built on the concept that CF represents a caregiver’s diminished ability or interest in being empathic or “bearing the suffering of clients” (28). Adams stated that research on CF has had several problems. First, there has been a lack of conceptual clarity about what constitutes CF and how it differs from other adverse work outcomes, such as job burnout. Indeed, no study has fully incorporated all aspects of Figley’s description of CF. To address these gaps, Adams focused on social workers in clinical practice in a region affected by a major traumatic event- the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City. CFSS was connected to the work environment of social workers because of high caseloads and inadequate resources (28). CFSS construct includes two dimensions: secondary traumatic stress (STS) measured with a 5-items subscale and BO (8 items). CFSS total scores can vary from a minimum of 13, indicating no symptoms of CF, to a maximum score of 130 for individuals experiencing frequent symptoms of CF.

3.3.3 Professional quality of life version 5 (ProQOL-5)

The ProQOL was developed as an evolution and expansion upon the CFST. ProQOL and its five subsequent versions consist of three subscales: BO, STS, and Compassion satisfaction. The transition from using the term CF to STS in ProQOL-5 reflects an evolution in terminology. However, specific details regarding the timing and individuals involved in this change are not explicitly known. This modification was likely influenced by ongoing research findings and emerging insights within the field. The ProQOL was designed to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall quality of life of individuals working in helping professions, incorporating not only the negative aspects like STS and BO but also the positive aspects such as compassion satisfaction. The target population is the people who work in helping professions that may respond to individual, community, national, and even international crises (3).

ProQOL-5 is the latest version of ProQOL (29). The measure demonstrates a high popularity, as indicated by its extensive use and a substantial online presence. However, the author did not provide details about its content validity.

3.3.4 Professional quality of life version 5 veterinary medicine version (ProQOL-5-VMV)

Hess-Holden conducted a modification of the ProQOL-5, resulting in the ProQOL-5-VMV tailored for veterinary professionals (30). This adaptation involved adjusting wording and potentially the content to align with the experiences of these professionals. The study involved 281 fourth-year veterinary medicine students in the United States, focusing on the relationship between compassion experiences and communication styles. This study is a descriptive study, and it does not encompass a content validation study or any other types of validation beside the Cronbach alpha estimation.

3.4 Quality of the PROMs development studies

PROM development studies were found for only two PROMs (CFST and ProQOL-5). As already mentioned, the CFSS was derivative of the CFST and lacks an independent development study. The ProQOL-5-VMV was introduced in a study as a CF measure, only describing that it has an adjusted wording of ProQOL-5 to align with the experiences of the veterinarians. Therefore, the assessment of these PROMs’ development quality was not possible, and we rated it as doubtful.

The design requirements for the CFST and ProQOL-5 were judged inadequate due to insufficient details concerning the constructs to be measured, the context of use, and deficiencies in concept elicitation information. There were uncertainties about the representativeness of participants included in the CFST and ProQOL-5 development, as it remained unclear whether they truly represented the target population. In CFST, the development process involved 142 psychotherapy practitioners who participated in workshops on CF between 1992 and 1993, but description of this sample is not provided, and it is does not encompass all representatives of target population. In ProQOL-5, the target population is the people who work in helping professions that may respond to individual, community, national, and even international crises but ProQOL-5 used the term of “helpers” which is ambiguous and could diminish the professional life in this capacity. Furthermore, the development processes of the CFST and ProQOL-5 lacked clear descriptions of the methods used, particularly regarding the cognitive interviews with participants. Moreover, no details were provided regarding whether and how the comprehensibility and comprehensiveness have been assessed. Although we contacted both PROMs’ first authors, no additional details were obtained besides what we found in the literature. Thus, the PROM development studies for CFST and ProQOL-5 were also considered of doubtful quality.

3.5 Quality of the patient reported outcome measure content validity

The evaluation of the content validity involves assessing three key criteria: relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Relevance ensures that PROM items are tailored to both the target population and the specific context of use. Comprehensiveness examines the overall completeness of the PROM, while comprehensibility focuses on how well the target population understands the PROM.

In our study, the CFSS is the single PROM for which a content validation study was available. This study was conducted in 2019 among 132 Turkish healthcare workers. This study included professionals from diverse fields such as nursing, medicine, psychology, and social work, covering various clinics such as neurology, infection, surgery, psychiatry, and emergency services in two hospitals located in Istanbul (31). The result suggested that the CFSS is a reliable and valid scale in the context of Turkish healthcare professionals (31). However, the authors did not provide information on the use of an interview/topic guide, involvement of trained moderators/interviewers, or the employment of two independent researchers for data analysis, as required in COSMIN manual (18). Consequently, the quality of this content validation study was rated as insufficient.

3.6 Grading of the overall quality of evidence

In evaluating the four PROMs included in this review, no high-quality evidence was identified, as indicated in Table 3, bottom line. All PROMs received low-quality evidence for relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. For relevance, all PROMs received low-quality evidence rating because the CFST and CFSS were assessed as having insufficient content validity, while ProQOL-5 and its veterinary medicine version were rated to have inconsistent content validity quality. The evidence quality for comprehensiveness received a low rating for all PROMs, with CFST having insufficient content validity, and other PROMs having indeterminate content validity. Similarly, the evidence quality for comprehensibility was low for all PROMs, with assessments indicating indeterminate content validity (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Results of content validity assessment in compassion fatigue measures included in the systematic review.

4 Discussion

4.1 Main findings

In this study, and for the first time, we systematically assessed the CF measures used in animal health care professionals and examined the content validity according to the COSMIN guidelines in four identified PROMs. According to study findings, the content validity of these PROMs is not sufficient to recommend any of them as a valid PROM for measuring CF in research or animal care practice. The overall quality of the evidence is low, meaning that further studies are necessary to validate and compare these PROMs, enabling the identification of the most valid and recommendable one.

4.2 Methodological limitations in included studies

The systematic review revealed notable shortcomings in evaluating content validity for measuring CF. Methodological deficiencies were observed in four PROMs to measure CF. These limitations included a lack of clarity regarding the constructs being measured, insufficient specificity regarding the context, deficiencies in the process of item elicitation, uncertainties regarding the representation of the target population, and inadequate descriptions of the cognitive interview process used to assess the comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the PROMs. The utilization of PROMs like CFST (1995), CFSS (2006), ProQOL-5 (2010), and ProQOL-5 VRV (2018), occurred before the introduction of established methodological standards such as the COSMIN content validity criteria in 2018 (18). The reliance on older instruments likely contributed to suboptimal methodological practices and inconsistent reporting within the studies (32). Recommendations include involving animal health professionals in item elicitation and using cognitive interviews to improve the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the PROM content with respect to the CF measurement in the target population. High content validity can be accomplished by conducting interviews or focus groups with representatives of target population, ensuring the language used in the PROM aligns with theirs, and incorporating the content of their qualitative statements about CF (33). Additionally, adhering to established guidelines such as the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) is crucial for reporting future content validation studies (34), where the qualitative research methods better suit the validation purpose, as stated in the PROM development guidelines (35–37). Addressing these limitations would lead to a more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of CF among animal health professionals.

4.3 Challenges in CF research and PROM development

4.3.1 Limitations inherent to the CF studies in animal health care professionals

Despite an extensive literature search and multiple linguistic options, the reviewed studies predominantly originate from developed English-speaking countries, notably Australia. Therefore, the generalizability of their findings to a broader range of animal health care professionals globally is questionable. The substantial overrepresentation of women, comprising 80% of study participants, reflects the feminization trend observed in the veterinary profession, as supported by data indicating that 87.3% of current veterinary school applicants (38) and 88% of veterinary technicians (39) identify as female. While it’s possible that females are more affected by compassion fatigue and therefore participated more in studies, it’s important to acknowledge the need for a comprehensive understanding of CF that considers the experiences and coping mechanisms of all individuals, including male counterparts. Moreover, the average age of participants being approximately 40 years may skew the results toward a specific age group, failing to capture the diversity of experiences and coping strategies among younger and older animal health care professionals. These features point out that CF investigation in animal health care professionals is still at its early stage and could improve.

Furthermore, we noticed an inconsistent use of CF measurement methods and statistical approaches, leading to a heterogenous result reporting, which precluded the use of meta-analysis to quantitively summarizing the prevalence of CF in animal health care professionals. Indeed, only two studies (40, 41) out of 17 included reported CF prevalence based on CF questionnaire, whereas other studies used CF PROMs without applying predefined cutoff values to estimate CF prevalence. Such an inconsistency in result reporting might be partly due to varying research objectives across included studies. However, it could be also due to lacunary or missing guidance regarding score calculation and result reporting in existent PROMs. For example, the CFSS validation study (31) provides no guidance for calculating the “Obtainable score” and it seems unclear whether the score should be reported per subscale or overall. Notwithstanding, despite Stamm’s guidance on the need of t-transformation of the ProQOL-5 scores and the cutoff values provided to estimate high CF level (3), the authors have not consistently adhered to these instructions when using the ProQOL-5 (24, 30, 42–51), resulting in compromised comparability of CF results.

Marca et al. (52) highlighted the critical importance of validity in validating mental health questionnaires and rating scales and the lack of standardized validation processes, leading to uncertainties and limitations in terms of validity. Key issues reported by Marca et al. (52) include the importance of clarity in terminology, standardization of statistical assessment methods, and the establishment of universally agreed-upon guidelines. The ambiguity in crucial terms like reliability, validity, and content and construct validity poses challenges in the PROM validation and thus in assessment of mental health problems (52). Addressing these core issues is important for improving the assessment and prevention of psychological disorders.

4.3.2 Challenges in standardization and development of PROMs

Developing PROMs tailored for CF poses distinct challenges, particularly in capturing the nuanced emotional experiences of animal health workers within this domain. While numerous PROM development guidelines exist, as evidenced by studies from Morgado et al. (35), Boateng et al. (36), and Kyriazos et al. (37), adherence among researchers remains inconsistent. The study by Morgado et al. sheds light on common limitations in PROM scale development, stressing the importance of establishing a solid theoretical foundation, conducting thorough construct validation, ensuring adequate sample sizes, and employing comprehensive item selection procedures (35). Similarly, Boateng et al. (36) emphasizes transparency in reporting, meticulous testing for convergent and divergent validity, careful selection of response scales and item wording, and assessment of measurement invariance. Kyriazos et al. (37) further underscores the necessity of creating a robust theoretical framework, validating constructs, determining appropriate sample sizes, and ensuring transparent reporting.

Various guidelines have been established to provide recommendations for ensuring content validity in PROM development, including conducting literature reviews, utilizing concept elicitation or focus groups, analysing data, generating items, and conducting cognitive interviews (33, 35–37, 53–55). However, the extent to which these guidelines are followed in practice varies among researchers. Given the variability in adherence to PROM development guidelines, it is imperative to advocate for their consistent utilization in future research endeavors (26, 32, 56). Following these guidelines developing and testing PROMs tailored for CF and testing will enhance their content and overall validity. Subsequently, the content validity of these PROMs can be easier assessed using established frameworks such as the COSMIN guidelines (18) and help compare available PROMs and identify the most valid one.

4.4 Limitation in compassion fatigue definition

CF demonstrates significant variability in its definition across different authors and scholars. For instance, Joinson characterizes CF as a unique form of burnout (1). Conversely, Figley suggests that CF is interchangeable with secondary traumatic stress (STS), indicating a close relationship with exposure to trauma through empathic engagement (2). Adams contributes to the discourse by highlighting the lack of clarity surrounding CF, further complicating its conceptualization (28). VanMoi et al. portrays CF as an ongoing and snowballing process, emphasizing continuous exposure to distressing situations that lead to moral distress and emotional depletion (57). Finally, Rauvola et al. (58) defines CF as an acute onset of emotional exhaustion and detachment, suggesting it is part of the broader category of empathy-based stress outcomes. Amidst these varying perspectives, Eng’s study underscored the need for clarification and exploration of the relationships between CF, burnout, and STS, culminating in the development of a new measurement tool, the Compassion Fatigue Inventory (CFI) (59). This diversity in CF definitions contrasts with a relative communality in the CF construct and measures despite a growing criticism among CF researchers and some clearly distinctive features mentioned above. This highlights the need of a better understanding and conceptualization of CF in general and in some specific professions particularly, prior to its harmonized definition and PROM development. This situation is not unique to CF. It’s worth reminding that burnout definition has remained for a long time vague and inconsistent and been harmonized only recently (60, 61). This harmonization along with a systematic assessment of burnout measures (62, 63) enabled researchers assessing and meta-analyzing burnout prevalence in different countries and occupational groups (5, 64, 65), which was impossible before despite a 60-year research on the topic. The CF concept appeared in the 90ths, and the empiric evidence and scientific literature are less abundant. Thus, the paramount question to answer is whether this form of stress is different from the other forms of occupational stress (e.g., burnout, post- and secondary traumatic stress syndrome, moral distress) and whether it can be really measured independently, using a specific PROM. Further research following Rauvola’s et al. (58) recommendations could hopefully answer these questions.

4.5 Challenges in assessing content validity related to the COSMIN method application

The concept of content validity is a topic of ongoing discussion in the scientific community, with varying perspectives on its definition and evaluation (18, 32, 66). In our study on CF among animal health workers, evaluating content validity posed unique challenges that were intricately connected with existing literature. A significant challenge we encountered was distinguishing between cognitive interviews and content validation studies, which was exemplified by inconsistencies in reporting practices across studies. For example, CFST development and test involved 142 psychotherapy practitioners, but the report lacked description of the sample’s representativeness (2), while CFSS’ pilot test lacked crucial details as required by COSMIN (31). While these studies mentioned interviews with participants, details regarding the interview process, such as the number of interviewers and specific prompts used, were often lacking, hindering our ability to ascertain their contribution to content validity (31, 56, 67, 68). Additionally, aligning PROM items with intended constructs across different studies proved challenging, necessitating meticulous scrutiny and interpretation of available data (31, 56, 67–69). The evolution of CF measurement added another layer of complexity, with early instruments like CFST assuming that CF is interchangeable with STS (2), while later instruments like CFSS separated these concepts (28) and the ProQOL-5 introduced compassion satisfaction (CS) as another distinct construct (29). This inconsistency in subscale labeling and definitions along with potential overlap between concepts within existing tools made it challenging to delineate CF from related experiences and requires careful consideration when dealing with multidimensional PROMs (32, 56, 68). Criticisms have been raised regarding the perceived strictness of the worst-score-counts principle, potentially leading to the issuance of ‘doubtful’ ratings withing the COSMIN framework (32). Despite the COSMIN methodology being widely recognized as the benchmark for PROM quality evaluation (31, 56, 67–69), overcoming these challenges is crucial to ensure its effective implementation.

4.6 Study strengths

The study boasts several notable strengths. First, it adhered to a robust research protocol, which allowed us to maintain research rigor and transparency throughout the entire review processes, starting with the pre-registration of the protocol in PROSPERO and its strict application during all review steps. Secondly, the study involved an experienced librarian who performed a comprehensive literature search spanning 50 years across three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE), thereby ensuring the inclusion of a wide range of relevant studies. Thirdly, studies reporting at least one psychometric property of the employed CF measure, not just the content validity, were considered eligible. Thereby we could minimize the risk of missing relevant evidence related to CF measurement. Fourthly, the screening and data extraction process were executed meticulously by three independent reviewers, with results cross-checked by a fourth reviewer, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the findings. Finally, the COSMIN methodology used in the study has been proven effective in evaluating the content validity of PROMs in various medical specialties (4, 32, 56, 62, 67, 70).

4.7 Study limitations

Our systematic review, like any review relying on secondary data, has inherent limitations. These limitations stem from two key areas: dependence on existing research and the complexities of assessing CF measurement tools. Firstly, the quality and completeness of the included studies can influence our findings. Potential biases within these studies, such as publication bias or methodological shortcomings, are beyond our control. We mitigated this risk by employing a rigorous search strategy and established criteria for assessing methodological quality. Secondly, the studies themselves exhibited limitations in evaluating CF measurement tools, particularly regarding content validity. Psychometrics, the field concerned with measurement properties, is more complex than clinometrics. Therefore, inadequate reporting practices in the primary studies made it difficult to accurately assess content validity using the COSMIN framework. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in target constructs and inconsistent reporting practices within the primary studies themselves limited our ability to definitively assess the content validity of the included CF measurement tools. Finally, the concept of CF itself presents a challenge. The ongoing debate around its definition and construct adds another layer of complexity. This highlights the need for future research to establish standardized methodologies and clearer definitions, ultimately enhancing the reliability of findings in CF research.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, the study findings highlight both the insufficiency of robust evidence supporting the content validity of current PROMs used for measuring CF in animal health care professionals and other settings, alongside the recognition of the scarcity and underutilization of tailored PROMs for this target population. This insufficiency is primarily rooted in concerns regarding the quality of development studies, the adequacy of content validity in existing PROMs, and the unclear definition of the CF concept and construct. Of particular concern is the continued utilization of these PROMs without periodic reassessment.

The Culture of Care is crucial nowadays, representing a commitment to animal welfare, scientific quality, staff well-being, and transparency (71). Additionally, experiencing CF and its negative consequences can have an impact on the well-being of animals, particularly in the context of utilizing the 3R principle (replacement, reduction, refinement) in research involving animals. Caretakers play a crucial role in promoting these principles, and research has shown a correlation between a decreased quality of life among laboratory animal staff and their lack of control over euthanasia procedures (16).

The future research efforts should focus on a better understanding and harmonization of the CF concept definition and construct underpinning with a stronger theoretical framework. Additionally, adherence to standardized guidelines for PROM development and validation is crucial to ensure sufficient validity in existing and newly developed PROMs, thereby improving their utility in clinical practice and research.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

MTNN: Formal analysis, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology. YB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Resources, Visualization. AM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – review & editing. SH: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. IGC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding for this project has been provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) under the NRP79 project with the reference number 407940_206396. SH, the principal investigator (PI) for the project titled “Linking animal and human welfare-refining rodent euthanasia,” received the funding from SNF. This funding supports collaborative efforts involving multiple partners.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Thomas Brauchli, the librarian from Unisanté, for his precious help in performing the systematic literature search.

Conflict of interest

SH was an Associate Editor for Frontiers in Veterinary Sciences.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Joinson, C. Coping with compassion fatique. Nursing. (1992) 22:116, 118–9, 120. doi: 10.1097/00152193-199204000-00035

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Figley, CR. Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. (1995). 292p p.

Google Scholar

3. Stamm, BH. The concise ProQOL manual. Pocatello. 2nd ed (2010). ProQOL.org. Pocatello.

Google Scholar

4. Shoman, Y, Rousson, V, Bianchi, R, and Guseva, CI. Holistic assessment of factors associated with exhaustion, the Main symptom of burnout: a Meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:13037. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013037

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Al-Gobari, M, Shoman, Y, Blanc, S, and Guseva, CI. Point prevalence of burnout in Switzerland: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Swiss Med Wkly. (2022) 152:w30229. doi: 10.4414/SMW.2022.w30229

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Burdorf, A. How to improve intervention research on the psychosocial work environment? Scand J Work Environ Health. (2023) 49:311–3. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.4107

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Zimmermann, C, Strohmaier, S, Niederkrotenthaler, T, and Thau, KES. Suicide mortality among physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and pharmacists as well as other high-skilled occupations in Austria from 1986 through 2020. Psychiatry Res. (2023) 323:115170. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115170

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Arbe Montoya, AI, Hazel, S, Matthew, SM, and McArthur, ML. Moral distress in veterinarians. Vet Rec. (2019) 185:631. doi: 10.1136/vr.105289

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Moses, L, Malowney, MJ, and Wesley, BJ. Ethical conflict and moral distress in veterinary practice: a survey of north American veterinarians. J Vet Intern Med. (2018) 32:2115–22. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15315

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Scotney, RL, McLaughlin, D, and Keates, HL. A systematic review of the effects of euthanasia and occupational stress in personnel working with animals in animal shelters, veterinary clinics, and biomedical research facilities. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2015) 247:1121–30. doi: 10.2460/javma.247.10.1121

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Jones-Fairnie, H, Ferroni, P, Silburn, S, and Lawrence, D. Suicide in Australian veterinarians. Aust Vet J. (2008) 86:114–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2008.00277.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Platt, B, Hawton, K, Simkin, S, and Mellanby, RJ. Suicidal behaviour and psychosocial problems in veterinary surgeons: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2012) 47:223–40. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0328-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Reeve, CL, Rogelberg, SG, Spitzmüller, C, and DiGiacomo, N. The caring-killing paradox: euthanasia-related strain among animal-shelter workers. J Appl Soc Psychol. (2005) 35:119–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02096.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Rogelberg, SG, Reeve, CL, Spitzmueller, C, and DiGiacomo, N. Impact of euthanasia rates, euthanasia practices, and human resource practices on employee turnover in animal shelters. JAVMA. (2007) 230:713–9. doi: 10.2460/javma.230.5.713

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Davies, K, and Lewis, D. Can caring for laboratory animals be classified as emotional labour? Animal Technol Welfare. (2010) 9:1–6.

Google Scholar

16. Grimm, H, Biller-Andorno, N, Buch, T, Dahlhoff, M, Davies, G, Cederroth, CR, et al. Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society. Front Vet Sci. (2023) 10:1185706. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1185706

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. LaFollette, MR, Riley, MC, Cloutier, S, Brady, CM, O'Haire, ME, and Gaskill, BN. Laboratory animal welfare meets human welfare: a cross-sectional study of professional quality of life, including compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:114. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00114

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Terwee, CB, Prinsen, CAC, Chiarotto, A, Westerman, MJ, Patrick, DL, Alonso, J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. (2018) 27:1159–70. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Churruca, K, Pomare, C, Ellis, LA, Long, JC, Henderson, SB, Murphy, LED, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. (2021) 24:1015–24. doi: 10.1111/hex.13254

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. University of York. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. New York, United States: University of York (2009). 294 p.

Google Scholar

21. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, and Altman, DPrisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Ouzzani, M, Hammady, H, Fedorowicz, Z, and Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. (2016) 5:210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, and Alonso-Coello, PSH. 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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Polachek, AJ, and Wallace, JE. The paradox of compassionate work: a mixed-methods study of satisfying and fatiguing experiences of animal health care providers. Anxiety Stress Coping. (2018) 31:228–43. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2017.1392224

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Palestini, L, Prati, G, Pietrantoni, L, and Cicognani, E. The quality of professional life in rescue work: a contribution to the Italian validation of the professional quality of life scale (ProQOL). In: Gabriele Prati LPEEC, editor. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale [Hogrefe Editore] (2013). 205–27.

Google Scholar

26. Mokkink, LB, Terwee, CB, Patrick, DL, Alonso, J, Stratford, PW, Knol, DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. (2010) 19:539–49. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Boscarino, JA, Adams, RE, and Figley, CR. Mental health service use after the world trade center disaster. J Nerv Ment Dis. (2012) 199:91–9. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182043b39

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Adams, RE, Boscarino, JA, and Figley, CR. Compassion fatigue and psychological distress among social workers: a validation study. Am J Orthopsychiatry. (2006) 76:103–8. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.103

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Stamm, BH. Professional quality of life: Compassion satisfaction and fatigue subscales, Version V (ProQOL). Center for Victims of Torture. (2009). Available at: https://proqol.org/proqol-measure [Accessed November 15, 2023].

Google Scholar

30. Hess-Holden, CL, Jackson, DL, Morse, DT, and Monaghan, CL. Understanding non-technical competencies: compassion and communication among fourth-year veterinarians-in-training. J Vet Med Educ. (2019) 46:506–17. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0917-131r1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Yildirim, S, and Cavcav, F. The compassion fatigue-short scale for healthcare professionals: a Turkish study of validity and reliability. Perspect Psychiatr Care. (2021) 57:1459–65. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12712

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Rothmund, M, Meryk, A, Rumpold, G, Crazzolara, R, Sodergren, S, Darlington, AS, et al. A critical evaluation of the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures assessing health-related quality of life in children with cancer: a systematic review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. (2023) 7:2. doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00540-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Brod, M, Tesler, LE, and Christensen, TL. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res. (2009) 18:1263–78. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Tong, A, Sainsbury, P, and Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. (2007) 19:349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Morgado, FFR, Meireles, JFF, Neves, CM, Amaral, ACS, and Ferreira, MEC. Scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. (2017) 30:3. doi: 10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Boateng, GO, Neilands, TB, Frongillo, EA, Melgar-Quiñonez, HR, and Young, SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. (2018) 6:149. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Kyriazos, T, and Stalikas, A. Applied psychometrics: the steps of scale development and standardization process. Psyc. (2018) 9:2531–60. doi: 10.4236/psych.2018.911145,

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Seymour, KG. The gender pay gap: Why more women in vet med does not equal gender equality (2023). American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA). Available at: https://www.aaha.org/publications/trends-magazine/trends-articles/2023/march-2023/f1-gender-pay-gap/ (Accessed March 15, 2024).

Google Scholar

39. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Veterinary technologists and technicians. Available at: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/veterinary-technologists-and-technicians (Accessed March 15, 2024).

Google Scholar

40. O'Malley, CI, Moody, CM, Foster, A, and Turner, PV. Compassion fatigue and coping mechanisms of laboratory animal professionals from Europe, China, and Japan. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. (2022) 61:634–43. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-22-000078

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Randall, MS, Moody, CM, and Turner, PV. Mental wellbeing in laboratory animal professionals: a cross-sectional study of compassion fatigue, contributing factors, and coping mechanisms. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. (2021) 60:54–63. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000039

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Signal, T, Casey, A, and Taylor, N. Does the talk match the numbers? ProQOL and compassion fatigue in animal rescue. Traumatology. (2023) 29:174–82. doi: 10.1037/trm0000384

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Rohlf, VI, Scotney, R, Monaghan, H, and Bennett, P. Predictors of professional quality of life in veterinary professionals. J Vet Med Educ. (2022) 49:372–81. doi: 10.3138/jvme-2020-0144

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Perret, JL, Best, CO, Coe, JB, Greer, AL, Khosa, DK, and Jones-Bitton, A. The complex relationship between veterinarian mental health and client satisfaction. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:92. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00092

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Musetti, A, Schianchi, A, Caricati, L, Manari, T, and Schimmenti, A. Exposure to animal suffering, adult attachment styles, and professional quality of life in a sample of Italian veterinarians. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0237991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237991

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Pizzolon, CN, Coe, JB, and Shaw, JR. Evaluation of team effectiveness and personal empathy for associations with professional quality of life and job satisfaction in companion animal practice personnel. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2019) 254:1204–17. doi: 10.2460/javma.254.10.1204

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Goni-Balentziaga, O, Vila, S, Ortega-Saez, I, Vegas, O, and Azkona, G. Professional quality of life in research involving laboratory animals. Animals. (2021) 11:2639. doi: 10.3390/ani11092639

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Monaghan, H, Rohlf, V, Scotney, R, and Bennett, P. Compassion fatigue in people who care for animals: an investigation of risk and protective factors. Traumatology. (2024) 30:77–85. doi: 10.1037/trm0000246

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Schlanser, TV, Rabinowitz, PM, and Thompson-Iritani, S. Compassion fatigue and satisfaction in US Army Laboratory animal medicine personnel. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. (2021) 60:422–30. doi: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-20-000080

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Yeung, P, White, B, and Chilvers, BL. Exploring wellness of wildlife Carers in New Zealand: a descriptive study. Anthrozoös. (2017) 30:549–63. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2017.1370213

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Andrukonis, A, and Protopopova, A. Occupational health of animal shelter employees by live release rate, shelter type, and euthanasia-related decision. Anthrozoös. (2020) 33:119–31. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1694316

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Marca, SC, Paatz, P, Györkös, C, Cuneo, F, Bugge, MD, Godderis, L, et al. Validation of questionnaires and rating scales used in medicine: protocol for a systematic review of burnout self-reported measures. medRxiv. (2020)

Google Scholar

53. Lasch, KE, Marquis, P, Vigneux, M, Abetz, L, Arnould, B, Bayliss, M, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. (2010) 19:1087–96. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Patrick, DL, Burke, LB, Gwaltney, CJ, Leidy, NK, Martin, ML, Molsen, E, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. (2011) 14:967–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Patrick, DL, Burke, LB, Gwaltney, CJ, Leidy, NK, Martin, ML, Molsen, E, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. (2011) 14:978–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Terwee, CB, Elders, PJM, Langendoen-Gort, M, Elsman, EBM, Prinsen, CAC, Heijden, AA, et al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures developed for assessing health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep. (2022) 22:405–21. doi: 10.1007/s11892-022-01482-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. van Mol, MM, Kompanje, EJ, Benoit, DD, Bakker, J, and Nijkamp, MD. The prevalence of compassion fatigue and burnout among healthcare professionals in intensive care units: a systematic review. PLoS One. (2015) 10:e0136955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136955

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Rauvola, R, Vega, D, and Lavigne, K. Compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress, and vicarious traumatization: a qualitative review and research. Agenda. (2019) 3:297–336. doi: 10.1007/s41542-019-00045-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Eng, L, Nordström, J, and Schad, E. Incorporating compassion into compassion fatigue: the development of a new scale. J Clin Psychol. (2021) 77:2109–29. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Guseva-Canu, I, Mesot, O, Györkös, C, Mediouni, Z, Mehlum, IS, and BuGGE, MD. Burnout syndrome in Europe: towards a harmonized approach in occupational health practice and research. Ind Health. (2019) 57:745–52. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2018-0159

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Guseva Canu, I, Marca, SC, Dell'Oro, F, Balázs, Á, Bergamaschi, E, Besse, C, et al. Harmonized definition of occupational burnout: a systematic review, semantic analysis, and Delphi consensus in 29 countries. Scand J Work Environ Health. (2021) 47:95–107. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3935

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Shoman, Y, Marca, SC, Bianchi, R, Godderis, L, van der Molen, HF, and Guseva, CI. Psychometric properties of burnout measures: a systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. (2021) 30:e8. doi: 10.1017/S2045796020001134

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Shoman, Y, Hostettler, R, and Canu, IG. Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed burnout measure and the burnout assessment tool: a systematic review. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. (2022) 74:238–45. doi: 10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Bai, X, Wan, Z, Tang, J, Zhang, D, Shen, K, Wu, X, et al. The prevalence of burnout among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists pre- and post-COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med. (2023) 55:4392. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2234392

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Jahrami, H, AlKaabi, J, Trabelsi, K, Pandi-Perumal, SR, Saif, Z, Seeman, MV, et al. The worldwide prevalence of self-reported psychological and behavioral symptoms in medical students: an umbrella review and meta-analysis of meta-analyses. J Psychosom Res. (2023) 173:111479. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111479

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Sireci, SG. The construct of content validity. Soc Indic Res. (1998) 45:83–117. doi: 10.1023/A:1006985528729

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Ghai, V, Subramanian, V, Jan, H, and Doumouchtsis, SK. Chorus: an international collaboration Harmonising outcomes RSiUWH. A systematic review highlighting poor quality of evidence for content validity of quality of life instruments in female chronic pelvic pain. J Clin Epidemiol. (2022) 149:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Degroote, L, DeSmet, A, De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Van Dyck, D, and Crombez, G. Content validity and methodological considerations in ecological momentary assessment studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2020) 17:35. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00932-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. van Andel, EM, Koopmann, BDM, Crouwel, F, Noomen, CG, de Boer, NKH, van Asseldonk, DP, et al. Systematic review of development and content validity of patient-reported outcome measures in inflammatory bowel disease: do we measure what we measure? J Crohns Colitis. (2020) 14:1299–315. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa057

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Baysal, Y, Goy, N, Hartnack, S, and Guseva, CI. Moral distress measurement in animal care workers: a systematic review. BMJ Open. (2024) 14:e082235. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082235

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Swiss 3R Competence Center. Culture of Care Working Group. Culture of Care: The Swiss Culutre of Care Charter. Available at: https://swiss3rcc.org/culture-of-care (Accessed March 1, 2024).

Google Scholar