Cited by 212Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout Research

Brief Mindfulness Practices for Healthcare Providers - A Systematic Literature Review.

Open access
Gilmartin, Heather, Goyal, Anupama, Hamati, Mary C., Mann, Jason, Saint, Sanjay, Chopra, Vineet·2017·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Mindfulness practice, where an individual maintains openness, patience, and acceptance while focusing attention on a situation in a nonjudgmental way, can improve symptoms of anxiety, burnout, and depression. The practice is relevant for health care providers; however, the time commitment is a barrier to practice. For this reason, brief mindfulness interventions (eg, ≤ 4 hours) are being introduced. We systematically reviewed the literature from inception to January 2017 about the effects of brief mindfulness interventions on provider well-being and behavior. Studies that tested a brief mindfulness intervention with hospital providers and measured change in well-being (eg, stress) or behavior (eg, tasks of attention or reduction of clinical or diagnostic errors) were selected for narrative synthesis. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria; 7 were randomized controlled trials. Nine of 14 studies reported positive changes in levels of stress, anxiety, mindfulness, resiliency, and burnout symptoms. No studies found an effect on provider behavior. Brief mindfulness interventions may be effective in improving provider well-being; however, larger studies are needed to assess an impact on clinical care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.05.041

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

6 of 32 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1

    Compliance with hand hygiene among health care personnel remains low.

    “yet low compliance by HCP continues to be a concern.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [15] source
    • cites [23] source
    • cites [28] source

      The Discussion (p. 30) describes PRISMA’s aims for reporting systematic reviews, and the explanation on p. 25 discusses how review results should be presented. Neither addresses hand hygiene or compliance among health care personnel. Searches for hand hygiene compliance and handwashing adherence found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1

    Hand hygiene by health care personnel is a foundational evidence-based practice for reducing health care-associated infections.

    “However, 1 of the most important and foundational evidence-based practices to reduce HAI is hand hygiene.”
    • Also stated in: § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1 · plain
      “Thus, HCP hand hygiene is an important step in breaking the transmission chain for development of HAIs, an area extensively researched.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [10] source
    • cites [15] source
    • cites [22] source

      The Introduction and Discussion address physician distress and resilience training, not hand hygiene or prevention of health care-associated infections. Searches for hand hygiene, handwashing, infection control, and health care-associated infections found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [23] source
    • cites [24] source
    • cites [25] source
  • Premisecitation
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Juice glove is generally considered the most sensitive sampling method for MRSA.

    “with the latter generally considered the most sensitive sampling method for MRSA. 101”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [101] Landers TF, Dent A, Schmidt AE, Binder C, Ari ~ no-Blasco S. Nitrile versus latex for glove juice sampling. PloS One 2014;9:e110686. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0098) source

      The Discussion (page not provided) says swabbing recovers fewer Staphylococcus spp. than glove juice sampling, supporting a narrower comparison. It does not specifically address MRSA or say glove juice is generally the most sensitive method among all sampling methods. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Nurse-to-patient ratios have been associated with higher rates of health care-associated infection.

    “Nurse-to-patient ratios have been associated with higher rates of health care -associated infection. 103-105”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [103] Cimiotti JP, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Wu ES. Nurse staf fi ng, burnout, and health careassociated infection. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:486-90. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0100) source
    • cites [104] Penoyer DA. Nurse staf fi ng and patient outcomes in critical care: a concise review. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1521-8. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0101)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [105] Hugonnet S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. The effect of workload on infection risk in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2007;35:76-81. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0102) source
  • Findingown data
    § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1

    For MRSA isolation, sample collection methods gave comparable rates (4%-7%) except agar direct contact (1.55%).

    “Sample collection methods used were comparable for MRSA isolation (4%-7%) except for agar direct contact (1.55%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • May combine two claims. 31
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2

    Risk of bias was assessed independently by two authors, using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies.

    “As recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, 2 authors (A.M. and A.G.) independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies.”
    • Also stated in: § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2 · plain
      “For randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane Collaboration tool 29 was used to determine risk of bias, with studies achieving low-risk scores in all 6 domains considered high quality.”
    • Also stated in: § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2 · plain
      “For observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale 30 that utilizes a star system to assess the quality of study in 3 domains (selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of outcome) was used.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [29] source

      The Risk of bias section states that two authors independently assessed all included studies, supporting the independent-assessment part of the claim. It says they used seven EPOC criteria for RCTs; it does not support the claim that they used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [30]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    The global epidemiology of MRSA varies considerably by continent.

    “The global epidemiology of MRSA has been extensively studied and varies considerably by continent. 46,97-100”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [46]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [97] Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. MRSA infection rates by country. Available from: http://www.cddep.org/tool/mrsa\_infection\_rates\_country# sthash.bzbuW4ur.Fz8kLVt2.dpbs. Accessed July 27, 2017.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [98] Martin-Loeches I, Diaz E, Valles J. Risks for multidrug-resistant pathogens in the ICU. Curr Opin Crit Care 2014;20:516-24. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0096) source
    • cites [99] O ' Neil J. Antimicrobial resistance: tackling a crisis for the health and wealth of nations. Available from: https://amr-review.org/sites/default/ fi les/AMR%20Review %20Paper%20-%20Tackling%20a%20crisis%20for%20the%20health%20and%20 wealth%20of%20nations\_1.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2017.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [100] Dickmann P, Keeping S, Doring N, Schmidt AE, Binder C, Ari ~ no-Blasco S, et al. Communicating the risk of MRSA: the role of clinical practice, regulation, and other policies in fi ve European countries. Front Public Health 2017;5:44. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0097) source

      The Introduction (page not provided) says MRSA prevalence varies across Europe, generally increasing from north to south. That supports geographic variation, but the paper does not establish variation between continents or describe global epidemiology. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 3

    The number of health care personnel hand samples per study ranged from 13 to 762, and 6,840 samples were reported in total.

    “Within these studies, the number of HCP hand samples reported ranged from 13-762, 63,75 with results from 6,840 samples reported in total.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 3

    The studies were conducted in general wards (20; 33.9%), intensive care units (20; 33.9%), mixed inpatient settings (19; 32.2%), and nursing facilities (5; 8.5%).

    “Twenty (33.9%) of the studies were performed after sampling HCP hands on general wards, 38,42-44,47,48,51,55,56,61,67,71,73,74,77,78, 85,86,89,92 20 (33.9%) in an ICU setting”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · plain
      “19 (32.2%) in mixed inpatient settings, 37,40,41,49, 50,57,62,64-66,68,72,79-81,84,90,93,94 and 5 (8.5%) in nursing facilities. 39,53,54,63,88”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1

    C difficile was sampled in only 4 of 59 studies, and 2 of those 4 found no growth.

    “Only 4 of 59 studies sampled for C difficile , with 2 of 4 fi nding no growth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 3

    At sampling, 28 (47.5%) studies collected from health care personnel during direct patient care, 26 (44.1%) did not specify activity, and 5 (8.5%) sampled after specific activities such as entering the ward or exiting a patient room.

    “Regarding HCP activities performed at time of sampling, 28 (47.5%) studies were collected samples during direct patient care, 37,39,40,44,52-54,57,58,60,62-64,69,70,75,77-79,81-83,85,87,89,90, 92,94 26 (44.1%) were unspeci fi ed”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · plain
      “and 5 (8.5%) were captured after speci fi c activities (ie, entering the ward or exiting a patient ' s room). 43,65,67,91,95”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 3

    Among the 59 included studies, testing covered MRSA in 42 (71.2%), P aeruginosa in 17 (28.8%), A baumannii in 14 (23.7%), VRE in 8 (13.6%), and C difficile in 4 (6.8%).

    “Of the 59 included studies, 42 (71.2%) tested for MRSA, 17 (28.8%) for P aeruginosa , 14 (23.7%) for A baumannii , 8 (13.6%) for VRE, and 4 (6.8%) for C difficile .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 2

    Among the included studies, 47 (79.7%) were cross-sectional, 7 (11.9%) were pre-post, 3 (5.1%) were randomized controlled trials, and 2 (3.4%) used mixed designs.

    “Forty-seven (79.7%) of the included studies used a cross-sectional design, 37-83 7 (11.9%) used pre-post designs, 84-90 3 (5.1%) were randomized controlled trials, 91-93 and 2 (3.4%) used mixed designs (eg, nonrandomized single arm, nonrandomized control). 94,95”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 2

    The included studies came from Asia (23; 39%), North America (18; 30.5%), Europe (13; 22%), South America (2; 3.4%), Africa (2; 3.4%), and Australia (1; 1.7%).

    “Twenty-three (39%) of the studies were conducted in Asia, 37,38,43,48,50,52,55,57,60,61,66,67,71,73-76,78,80,81,84,92,94 18 (30.5%) in North America”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 2 · plain
      “13 (22%) in Europe, 41,46,47,56,59,65,69,72,77,79,82,85,89 2 (3.4%) in South America, 62,68 2 (3.4%) in Africa, 49,58 and 1 (1.7%) in Australia. 83”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 3

    Sample collection used juice glove in 20 (33.9%) studies, moist swab in 17 (28.9%), agar direct contact in 13 (22%), swab in 7 (11.9%), subungual scraping in 1 (1.7%), and was unspecified in 1 study.

    “swab was used in 7 (11.9%), 38,47,49,65,73,75,86 and subungual scraping was used in 1 (1.7%). 61 One study did not specify a collection method. 93”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS · p. 2

    The electronic search found 6,335 articles; 57 met inclusion criteria, and 2 additional studies from content experts brought the total to 59 included articles.

    “A total of 6,335 articles were retrieved by our electronic search, of which 57 met inclusion criteria. Two additional studies provided by content experts were identi fi ed, leading to a total of 59 articles in the systematic review (Fig 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (A) P aeruginosa and A baumannii · p. 5

    Seventeen studies tested for P aeruginosa on HCP hands, with 2,477 samples, yielding a pooled prevalence of 4.59% (95% CI 1.54-8.89).

    “Seventeen (28.8%) studies tested for P aeruginosa on HCP hands, with a total of 2,477 samples collected. A pooled prevalence of 4.59% (95% CI, 1.54-8.89) was observed for this pathogen across these studies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    In the 42 included studies, the highest MRSA rates were in North America (8.28%), followed by Asia (4.23%) and Europe (2.47%).

    “In the 42 studies included in this review, the highest rates of MRSA were found among those conducted in North America (8.28%), followed by Asia (4.23%), and Europe (2.47%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Five of the 10 ICU studies reported recovery rates of 0%, of which 3 used the agar direct method.

    “Furthermore, 5 of the 10 ICU studies reported recovery rates of 0%, of which 3 46,71,77 used the agar direct method.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Agar direct contact had the lowest observed MRSA prevalence rate (1.55%), with 4 studies demonstrating 0% prevalence.

    “Agar direct contact had the lowest observed prevalence rate (1.55%), with 4 studies demonstrating 0% prevalence. 46,63,71,77”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (A) MRSA · p. 5

    By continent, MRSA pooled prevalence was highest in North America (8.28%, 95% CI 3.54-14.52), followed by Asia (3.96%, 95% CI 2.08-6.31) and Europe (2.54%, 95% CI 1.04-4.53).

    “When grouping by continent, North America showed the highest pooled prevalence of 8.28% (95% CI, 3.54-14.52), followed by Asia (3.96%; 95% CI, 2.08-6.31), and Europe (2.54%; 95% CI, 1.04-4.53) (Fig 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation
    § (A) P aeruginosa and A baumannii · p. 5

    Two P aeruginosa studies reported a 0% prevalence.

    “Two of these studies reported a 0% prevalence. 66,75”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (A) P aeruginosa and A baumannii · p. 5

    ICU vs general ward plus mixed inpatient: P aeruginosa carriage rates were statistically similar at 5.67% (CI 0.11-16.75) and 3.93% (CI 0.92-8.47).

    “Subgroup analysis was limited to care setting comparing the ICU vs the general ward plus mixed inpatient group, which showed statistically similar rates of P aeruginosa carriage at 5.67% (CI, 0.11-16.75) and 3.93% (CI, 0.92-8.47) on HCP hands, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (A) MRSA · p. 5

    MRSA prevalence in the ICU was 2.20% (95% CI 0.34-5.12) compared with 5.14% (95% CI 3.40-7.17) in the general ward plus mixed inpatient group, a non-significant difference.

    “When comparing the ICU to the general ward plus mixed inpatient group, MRSA prevalence differed but was not signi fi cant (2.20% [95% CI, 0.34-5.12] vs 5.14% [95% CI, 3.40-7.17]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (A) P aeruginosa and A baumannii · p. 7

    Fourteen studies reported culturing for A baumannii, with 2,154 samples, yielding a pooled prevalence of 6.18% (95% CI 3.05-10.17).

    “Fourteen (23.7%) studies reported culturing for A baumannii , with a total of 2,154 samples collected. Across 14 studies, the pooled prevalence of A baumannii was 6.18% (95% CI, 3.05-10.17)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (A) MRSA · p. 5

    Cross-sectional studies had a pooled MRSA prevalence of 3.25% (95% CI 2.12-4.57), compared with 12.49% (95% CI 5.27-21.98) in non-cross-sectional studies.

    “with 31 cross-sectional studies showing a pooled prevalence of 3.25% (95% CI, 2.12-4.57) vs 7 non -cross-sectional studies (eg, pre-post, randomized control trial), with a prevalence of 12.49% (95% CI, 5.27-21.98).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (C) C difficile · p. 5

    Four studies cultured for C difficile (not spores), with 235 samples collected.

    “Four (6.8%) studies reported culturing for the presence of the bacterium C difficile (not spores), with a total of 235 samples collected 53,56,90,93 in multiple care settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § (B) VRE · p. 5

    Eight studies screened for VRE, with 590 samples, yielding a pooled prevalence of 9.03% (95% CI 0.74-23.37).

    “Eight (13.6%) studies screened for VRE, with a total of 590 samples collected. This yielded a pooled prevalence of 9.03% (95% CI, 0.7423.37)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § (C) C difficile · p. 5

    Two of four C difficile studies reported 0% prevalence, while two reported 10.7% and 2.4%.

    “Two of 4 studies reported a 0% prevalence 53,56 , whereas 2 others reported a prevalence of 10.7% 93 and 2.4%. 90”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Data synthesis and analysis

    The review followed PRISMA guidelines.

    “This review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 36”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § RESULTS · p. 2

    Inter-rater agreement for study eligibility was 0.95.

    “Inter-rater agreement for study eligibility was 0.95.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Data synthesis and analysis · p. 2

    The funding source did not participate in designing the study, collecting or analyzing data, interpreting results, or writing the report.

    “The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Data synthesis and analysis · p. 2

    The corresponding author had full access to all data and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

    “The corresponding author had full access to all of the data in the study and had fi nal responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1

    Health care personnel hands can carry multidrug-resistant organisms and thereby transmit infections.

    “Hands of health care personnel (HCP) can transmit multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), resulting in infections.”
    • Also stated in: § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1 · plain
      “For hospitalized patients, health care personnel (HCP) are a vector for MDROs as their hands frequently contact contaminated medical devices and environmental surfaces.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [12] source
    • cites [13] source
    • cites [14] source
    • cites [15] source
    • cites [16] source
    • cites [17]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18] source
    • cites [19] source
    • cites [20] source
    • cites [21]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2

    Because no included studies had comparability measures, that domain was removed from the risk-of-bias assessment for all studies.

    “Because no studies included comparability measures, this was removed from the assessment of risk of bias for all studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Study selection · p. 2

    Study eligibility was determined independently by two authors, and disagreements were adjudicated by a third author.

    “Two authors (A.M. and R.S.) independently determined study eligibility. Any differences in opinion regarding inclusion were adjudicated by a third author (V.C.).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1

    The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017068296).

    “This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42017068296).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2

    Data extraction was done independently and in duplicate by two authors using a standardized template.

    “Two authors (A.G. and R.S.) used a standardized template to extract data independently and in duplicate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Overall prevalence of MRSA among patients in the United States is higher than in most other countries.

    “given an overall higher prevalence of MRSA among patients in the United States compared to most other countries. 97”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [97] Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. MRSA infection rates by country. Available from: http://www.cddep.org/tool/mrsa\_infection\_rates\_country# sthash.bzbuW4ur.Fz8kLVt2.dpbs. Accessed July 27, 2017.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § (A) P aeruginosa and A baumannii · p. 9

    The Cohen kappa coefficient for adjudication of study bias was 0.90.

    “The Cohen k coef fi cient for adjudication of study bias, used to measure inter-rater agreement, was 0.90.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of MDRO prevalence on HCP hands.

    “to our knowledge, this is the fi rst comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of MDROprevalence on HCP hands.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Many studies inferred samples were collected during direct patient care activities, but circumstances at collection, timing of last hand hygiene or antiseptic solution, and local endemic MDRO levels were often not explicitly reported, leading to potential variability in transient bacterial load on HCP hands.

    “Third, we acknowledge that although many studies inferred samples were collected during direct patient care activities, often the circumstances at the time of collection were not explicitly reported, nor was the timing of the last hand hygiene or antiseptic solution used, or the difference in local endemic levels of MDRO, leading to potential variability between studies in the transient bacterial”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    The rates of HCP contamination appear to vary by continent, patient contamination, culture methods, and study design.

    “The rates of HCP contamination appear to vary not only by continent, but are also in fl uenced by patient contamination, culture methods, and study design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § (A) P aeruginosa and A baumannii · p. 9

    Fifty-seven (96.7%) studies were determined to be at low risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa or Cochrane tool, whereas 2 (3.4%) were considered high risk.

    “Fifty-seven (96.7%) studies were determined to be a low risk for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa or Cochrane tool, whereas 2 (3.4%) were considered high risk (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Only 5 studies were identified pertaining to MDROs in nursing facilities, limiting understanding of prevalence rates in this group.

    “Whereas our systematic review was robust, only 5 studies were identi fi ed pertaining to MDROs in nursing facilities, thus limiting our understanding of prevalence rates in this group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § CONCLUSIONS · p. 9

    Our study included a thorough search of the literature by a reference librarian using robust methodology.

    “Our study included a thorough search of the literature by a reference librarian using robust methodology”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
41 of 41

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review of brief mindfulness practices for health care providers found that these practices increased mindfulness and reduced stress and anxiety.

    “This is in keeping with the findings of a systematic review of brief mindfulness practices for health care providers, which found that these practices increased mindfulness and reduced stress and anxiety (Gilmartin et al., 2017).”

    From Emergency department nurses' experiences of a mindfulness training intervention: A phenomenological exploration (2023) · cites this paper as Gilmartin et al., 2017

    The supplied passages and further searches for mindfulness, stress, and anxiety return text about hand hygiene and multidrug-resistant organisms, including a different article title on p. 1. Although the index labels this as the cited review, the available text does not address whether brief mindfulness practices increased mindfulness or reduced stress and anxiety. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several reviews of EBS interventions for healthcare staff have focused only on mindfulness-based interventions.

    “Several reviews of EBS interventions for healthcare staff have focused only on mindfulness-based interventions [33, 133–135].”

    From Interventions to address empathy-based stress in mental health workers: A scoping review and research agenda (2024) · cites this paper as [133]

    The supplied passages concern hand hygiene and multidrug-resistant organisms, not mindfulness interventions. Searches of the indexed copy for mindfulness and brief practices for healthcare providers returned no relevant passage, so this copy cannot verify what the cited review covers. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Personality traits are relatively stable through time but can be enhanced through specific interventions.

    “Although personality traits are relatively stable through time they are not cast in stone and can be enhanced, as research has shown, through specific interventions (for reviews and metanalyses see Galante et al., 2018; Gilmartin et al., 2017; Jayawardene et al., 2017; McConville et al., 2017; Quaglia et al., 2016; Spinelli et al., 2018).”

    From Specific mindfulness traits protect against negative effects of trait anxiety on medical student wellbeing during high-pressure periods (2021) · cites this paper as Gilmartin et al., 2017

    The indexed passages returned for this DOI discuss hand hygiene and multidrug-resistant organisms (Introduction, p. 1; Results, p. 4), not personality traits. Searches for trait stability and changes through interventions found no passage addressing either point, so this copy cannot verify the attribution. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Regional MRSA prevalence differs between results and conclusions

    Minor

    The results give pooled MRSA prevalence as 3.96% for Asia and 2.54% for Europe, but the conclusions give 4.23% and 2.47%, respectively.

  • MRSA study-design groups leave four studies unaccounted for

    Minor

    The paper says 42 studies tested for MRSA, but its cross-sectional and non-cross-sectional groups contain only 31 and 7 studies, totaling 38. It does not explain the four-study difference.

    Reported 42 · recomputed 38

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilmartin, H., Goyal, A., Hamati, M. C., Mann, J., Saint, S., & Chopra, V.
Affiliations
  • Denver VA Medical Center (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (US)
Corresponding author
Gilmartin, Heather
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
130
Issue
10
Pages
1219.e1-1219.e17
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2724327893
Cited by
211
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
brief mindfulness intervention, healthcare workers, provider well-being, burnout, anxiety, stress, resilience, medical errors, attention, hospital staff
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Burnout, Professional, Depression, Health Personnel, Humans, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-30.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-30.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review