Cited by 41Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsOccupational Health and BurnoutHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout

Relationship between psychological flexibility and work-related quality of life for healthcare professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Garner, Emma Victoria, Golijani-Moghaddam, Nima·2021·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.06.007

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garner, E. V., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
21
Pages
98-112
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182832288
Cited by
41
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Keywords
psychological flexibility, compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, work-related quality of life, healthcare workers, helping professions, occupational stress, mindfulness-based interventions

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