The prevalence of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background Compassion fatigue is a consequence of chronic work-related stress exposure among healthcare providers. Nursing is a high-risk, stressful profession which increases nurses' vulnerability to compassion fatigue symptoms compared to other healthcare workers. Compassion fatigue has serious consequences for nursing staff, patients and healthcare organizations. Though several studies on the prevalence of compassion fatigue among nurses have been published, the reported data vary considerably across studies; and few meta-analysis have examined the prevalence of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among nurses with large sample sizes. Objectives To systematically assess the prevalence of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among nurses, and to evaluate the effect of different geographical regions, years and departments on the prevalence of compassion fatigue. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsyclNFO, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Weipu Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) were searched in the systematic review. The time frame for the searches included all literature before January 31st, 2020. Review methods The reviewers independently completed study selection, quality assessments, data extraction and analysis of all included literature. The mean scores and standard deviations of the three subscales of the Pr…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 85 · Cited by 369
- Authors
- Xie, W., Chen, L., Feng, F., Okoli, C. T. C., Tang, P., Zeng, L., Jin, M., Zhang, Y., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Sichuan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Yonggang
- Wang, Jialin
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-08
- Volume
- 120
- Pages
- 103973
- ISSN
- 0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3161416593
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 10.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (JSZX2018008, SKYY2018018)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Keywords
- compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, nurses, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, professional quality of life, prevalence, intensive care unit nurses, regional variation, temporal trends, occupational stress, ProQOL, secondary traumatic stress disorder
- MeSH terms
- Compassion Fatigue, Burnout, Professional, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Empathy, Europe, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Nurses, Personal Satisfaction, Quality of Life, Prevalence
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.
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
