PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2026Health Science Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Researchers' Mental Health and Quality of Life: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

View Full Paper
LALavine Jordane Queiroz de AzevedoMSMarcos de Moraes SousaMCMurilo Marques Costa

Key Points

  • This protocol aims to systematically review and analyze factors impacting researchers' mental health and quality of life.
  • Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025635600) following PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines.
  • Searching seven databases for observational studies.
  • Assessing methodological quality and risk of bias, with descriptive synthesis and meta-analysis planned.
  • This is a study protocol, therefore no results are available at this stage.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Although several previous studies have examined the determinants of research productivity, the conditions under which researchers achieve high performance remain poorly understood. This protocol aims to lay the groundwork for a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the factors associated with researchers' mental health (RMH) and quality of life (RQoL) across public and private institutions, to provide future evidence to inform targeted policies. Methods The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025635600) following PRISMA‐P 2015 guidelines. Seven databases will be searched (CINAHL, LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycArticles) for observational studies. Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Methodological quality (GRADE), risk of bias (Downs and Black scale), and interrater reliability (Cohen's κ ) will be assessed. Descriptive synthesis and meta‐analysis (when appropriate) will explore subgroup analyses by sex/gender, academic role, and geographic region. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Cochran's Q and I 2 statistics. Results This is a study protocol, therefore no results are available at this stage. The review will systematically synthesize the available evidence on the association between RQoL and RMH and, where possible, provides combined effect estimates through meta‐analysis. Conclusion The systematic review and meta‐analysis will highlight challenges in the academic environment and provide evidence to inform the development of more sustainable working conditions. Trial Registration PROSPERO (CRD42025635600).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Azevedo et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a095c147880e6d24efe2174https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.72253
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Dynamics of Perceived Stress, Stress Appraisal, and Coping Strategies in an Evolving Educational Landscape2024 · 30 citations
  2. 2How can we mainstream mental health in research engaging the range of Sustainable Development Goals? A theory of change2022 · 4 citations
  3. 3Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses2003 · 64,029 citations
  4. 4Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement2009 · 20,005 citations
  5. 5Balancing between inspiration and exhaustion: PhD students' experienced socio-psychological well-being2011 · 301 citations