ArticleBMJ open2025
Skill mix changes in healthcare professions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of the scoping review was to systematise the existing knowledge about skill mix changes among the healthcare workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic.
designScoping review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Review. DATA SOURCES: Five databases including CINAHL Ultimate, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and Scopus were searched in August 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review encompassed original research studies published from January 2020 to August 2024, on the skill mix of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quantitative and qualitative studies were included without geographical or linguistic restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted by two researchers, capturing details such as publication year, study title, country, target population, study purpose and methodology, sample size, analysed variables, results and recommendations.
resultsA total of 13 563 records were identified in the databases of which 3962 remained for abstract review. 32 articles were included in the final analysis. 17 of the 32 papers were from Western and Southern Europe. The healthcare professions which were described in the studies were physicians, nurses, midwives, paramedics, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and medical assistants, of which the majority of the studies were conducted among nurses (n=16), pharmacists (n=11) and physicians (n=6). Most studies (n=9) concerned the adding of new tasks/roles and reallocating tasks in combination with teamwork (n=8). Research covered a range of topics, including psychological aspects of work, patient safety, work reorganisation, training and collaboration. Many studies focused on the challenges related to skill mix, such as the blurring of responsibilities and role ambiguity.
conclusionsThe research summarised in this review demonstrates the impact of implementing skill mix changes on healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the area of mental health. The research highlights the importance of adaptation in response to pressures among healthcare professions and the entire system. Further research is needed to examine the long-term impact of skill mix on healthcare workers across regions and professions in crisis situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.