Background

Burnout among nurses carries significant implications [1]. Recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an “occupational phenomenon,” nurse burnout results from chronic workplace stress that is inadequately managed [2]. In the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11), burnout is defined as feelings of exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment [3]. According to Maslach’s conceptualization [4], emotional exhaustion (EE) entails feeling emotionally drained and lacking in emotional reserves, while depersonalization (DP) or cynicism involves a negative and detached response to others. Reduced personal accomplishment (PA) refers to declined feelings of competence and performance at work. The consequences of nurse burnout are far-reaching; it lowers quality of life, performance levels, and organizational commitment. Worse still, it may escalate their intention to leave [5], potentially exacerbating staff turnover and the quality of nursing care [6].

In 2020, the global pooled prevalence of nurse burnout was 11.2% [7]. However, preceding studies evaluating burnout symptoms indicated rates as high as 40.0% [8,9]. Post-COVID-19 pandemic, the rate has soared to as high as 68.0% [10]. Its prevalence in Asia is particularly worrying due to the challenging working conditions in the region, including low nurse-patient ratios and an aging population. This viewpoint is supported by a meta-analysis conducted by Woo et al. (2020) [7], which identified Southeast Asia and the Pacific regions as exhibiting the highest prevalence (13.7%) of nurse burnout. Moreover, a Malaysian national survey conducted in 2019 revealed an overall nurse burnout prevalence that was higher than the global average (24.4%) [11]. This finding was reinforced by Abd Wahab et al. (2023) [12], whose study highlighted a prevalence of work-related stress among healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly nurses, at 24.3%.

Given the severity, many interventions have been taken at various levels to prevent and manage the nurse burnout epidemic. Addressing burnout in this population necessitates a comprehensive approach that encompasses both person- and organization-directed interventions [13]. Organization-directed interventions target specific systemic factors, such as modifying schedules, reducing workload intensity, enhancing teamwork and organizational culture, and increasing job control and resources [13]. While research has demonstrated the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing burnout [14,15], they face notable obstacles, including resistance to change [16], constraints on resources and leadership support [17], and challenges related to organizational culture [3]. In contrast, person-directed burnout interventions aim to enhance individual skills, resilience, and coping mechanisms, thereby providing immediate relief and improving job satisfaction and retention [16].

One such person-directed intervention, psychoeducation, involves educating individuals about mental health conditions, treatment options, and coping strategies through various formats such as face-to-face individual or group sessions as well as via online resources [18,19]. Psychoeducation interventions range from mindfulness, self-assessment, cognitive-behavioral techniques, rational emotive training, gratitude practice, meditation, and relaxation methods in the literature. These interventions empower nurses to manage their well-being and resilience by emphasizing intrinsic motivation and satisfaction. According to Pines (2000) [20], burnout reduction can be attained through the enhancement of coping skills such as cognitive stress management, relaxation techniques, effective time management, and social skills training. Nevertheless, the types of intervention may vary and different effect sizes have been reported [21].

While several reviews have been published on interventions to reduce nurse burnout, their scopes differ from ours. Notably, previous reviews have examined combined-strategy burnout interventions: Zang et al. (2020) [22] included both nurses and physicians, whereas Lee and Cha (2023) [23] focused specifically on nurses. Additionally, Hsu et al. (2024) [24] recently conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of individual-based methods to reduce nursing burnout. Our review will examine a wider array of psychoeducational burnout interventions, including but not limited to mindfulness training. To the best of our knowledge, most systematic reviews of person-directed interventions focused exclusively on mindfulness training [25,26]. By providing a more comprehensive understanding of the available psychoeducational strategies, we hope to provide valuable insights for healthcare managers and policymakers to establish evidence-based burnout interventions that are effective in preventing and managing burnout among nurses.

Overview

This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist to ensure the quality and consistency of the procedure and reporting [S1 and S2 Tables]. A publicly available protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. Additionally, the published protocol [27] acted as the blueprint for guiding the systematic exploration and mapping of the current literature concerning person-directed psychoeducational burnout interventions among nurses [S1 Data]. As this study involved a review of existing literature and did not involve human participants, ethical approval was not required.

Search strategy

Five electronic research databases (PubMed-Medline, EBSCOhost, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were searched. Our search strategy combined three key blocks of terms (burnout, nurses, burnout intervention) using Medical Subject Headings (MESH) terms, subject-specific headings, and keywords. Boolean operators (“AND” and “OR”) were applied to refine the search process. Examples of search strategies used for the databases are outlined in Table 1. In addition, a manual search for relevant articles was also conducted by examining the reference lists of articles included. Studies published in languages other than English and non-peer-reviewed journals were excluded. The search was limited to the ten years from January 1st, 2014, and December 31st, 2023.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Examples of search strategies used for various databases.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t001

In the initial stage, study titles and abstracts were screened, followed by a thorough examination of the full texts of the selected studies to determine the eligibility criteria. Searches, eligibility assessments, and data extraction were performed independently in an unblinded standardized manner by all team members working in pairs. Next, full-text appraisal was performed on selected articles before the list of included studies was finalized. Any discrepancies between reviewers at any stage of the record selection, data extraction, or appraisal process were first discussed between the paired reviewers to reach a consensus. If an agreement could not be reached, the issue was escalated to a broader team discussion involving all researchers. Final decisions were made through mutual agreement, ensuring methodological rigor and minimizing bias. This structured approach facilitated the inclusion of studies that best met the research criteria while maintaining the integrity and reliability of the review.

Study selection

To facilitate the search strategy of this systematic review, the PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design) framework was employed to align the research question with corresponding search terms (Table 2). This review focused on the quantitative evaluation of person-directed psychoeducational interventions aimed at reducing burnout among nurses. Therefore, as a minimum requirement for inclusion, eligible studies must report the intervention outcome with validated evaluation tools using at least two time points. However, no restrictions were set for the practice setting of the nurses, be it hospital, community, or private practice. In terms of outcome, studies that did not directly report burnout among nurses, such as those focusing on depression, anxiety, or substance use were excluded. In addition, studies that evaluated organizational-directed burnout interventions such as changes to organizational policies or work procedures were not included. Only quantitative studies that involved case and control groups (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized experimental studies, and cohort studies) were included.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Eligibility criteria based on the PICOS framework.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t002

Data extraction

A data extraction sheet was developed using Google Sheets to extract data from the included studies. Criteria for data extraction were based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome measure was burnout as measured by validated tools, either through researchers’ assessment or participants’ self-reporting. Summary data for each study included authorship, study design, participants, healthcare setting, intervention name, comparison group, measurement tools and overall outcomes, intervention details (name, type, activities, duration, mode of delivery, implementers, comparison group, follow-up), as well as burnout intervention outcomes were retrieved and synthesized descriptively.

Quality assessment

All included articles were processed for the quality of analysis relevant to the research methodology. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate quantitative and quality evidence. The JBI critical appraisal tools are widely acknowledged as a reliable tool to investigate the study quality of various study designs such as RCT, systematic review, and observational studies.

Data synthesis

During the data synthesis phase, all included studies were comprehensively examined, with study characteristics, quality, and intervention effects on nurse burnout tabulated in Google Sheets. A narrative synthesis approach was used to thematically organize and summarize all extracted information, identifying effective psychoeducational interventions for managing nurse burnout. Subgroup analyses were done to assess the differential effectiveness of interventions, categorizing them based on intervention types, such as online programs, in-person workshops, or blended learning formats to determine how delivery mode impacts effectiveness.

Study inclusion

Fig 1 displays the results of the systematic review article selection process based on PRISMA guidelines. As the initial search strategy was purposefully broad and sensitive, the overall database search generated 14,092 records, with another six records identified from a secondary reference search. After title and abstract screening, 89 full-text articles were subjected to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following that, 64 articles were excluded for various reasons and only 27 studies met the criteria for final inclusion.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.g001

Quality of the included studies

Table 3 outlines the detailed quality assessment results of all included articles using the JBI critical appraisal tool. We classified questions Q5 (“Were those delivering the treatment blind to treatment assignment?”), Q7 (“Were outcome assessors blind to treatment assignment?”) and Q9 (“Were outcomes measured in a reliable way?”) for randomized studies and question Q8 (“Were outcomes measured in a reliable way?”) for non-randomized studies as not applicable (NA) due to inherent methodological considerations specific to this type of research. The nature of psychoeducational interventions, which include interactive educational activities, makes it challenging to blind outcome assessors to treatment assignments. These activities are difficult to conceal from participants and facilitators, and primary outcomes are often measured using self-reported instruments, making participant blinding impractical. Additionally, the reliability of outcome measurements is upheld using standardized, validated tools like the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) across the included studies, which have undergone rigorous psychometric validation, ensuring their reliability in accurately measuring burnout and its dimensions. Thus, the ‘NA’ classification for these questions acknowledges the specialized context of psychoeducational research and the established reliability of the measurement instruments used rather than indicating any oversight or disregard for the importance of these methodological aspects. Given their standardization and the robust methodological framework, they provide for evaluating subjective and self-reported outcomes specific to burnout, these tools inherently satisfy the reliability criterion. This approach also underscores our systematic review’s methodological rigor by aligning the measurement instruments’ proven reliability with the specific requirements for assessing psychoeducational interventions’ effectiveness in addressing nurse burnout.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Quality appraisal using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t003

Characteristics of included studies

Table 4 outlines the characteristics of the 27 studies in this review. Most were published in the second half of the search period. There were eight studies from 2023, five from 2019 and 2022 each, and two from 2020 and 2021, respectively. Geographically, there are six studies from China [28–33], followed by the United States of America (USA) [34–37] and Iran [38–41] with four studies each, as well as two from Portugal [42,43], Taiwan [44,45], and Turkey [46,47] respectively. The remaining countries, including Australia [48], Egypt [49], Hong Kong [50], Saudi Arabia [51], Spain [52], Sweden [53], and the United Kingdom (UK) [54], contributed one study each. Most of the studies (n=25) implemented burnout intervention programs in the hospital setting while the remaining two were held in specialized healthcare facilities, i.e., an elderly dementia institute and a mental health facility. Of the 27 studies, 13 applied a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, while 14 were quasi-experimental. The sample size of study participants ranged from 46 to 296. In addition, the attrition rate of the participants ranged from 0% [28,49,52] to as high as 60.7% [34]. A total of 12 studies reported an attrition rate of <20%. However, four studies did not report the attrition rate [33,38,40,41].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Characteristics of included studies (n=27).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t004

In most studies, control groups involved a waitlist group (n=11) rather than an active control group (n=6). Furthermore, ten studies did not provide any intervention to the control group. Regarding the outcome measurement tools, the most frequently utilized instrument was Maslach’s Burnout Inventory (MBI) (n=15), followed by the Professional Quality of Life Scale version 5 (ProQOL-5) (n=8) and the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) (n=6). The Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) were also used in five studies each. In terms of outcomes, 15 articles concentrated on measuring burnout as the primary outcome [28–32,38–42,45,46,49–51]. About half (n=12) combined burnout with other outcomes such as perceived stress [35,36,47], compassion satisfaction [35,44], and mindfulness [35,50].

Characteristics of burnout interventions

Table 5 describes the overview of burnout interventions in the 27 studies included in this review. The most applied intervention, whether as a single intervention or mixed with other strategies, was mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) (n=16), followed by cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) (n=6). With regards to the mode of delivery, 14 out of 27 studies utilized physical group sessions solely. In contrast, seven studies relied only on a digital approach using materials such as compact discs (CDs), video, and online conferences. The remaining six studies applied a blended physical and digital delivery format. The duration of the interventions varied widely from one day to six months. Many of the studies practiced waitlist control groups (n=11) that received similar interventions later. Only six studies had an active control group that received similar treatment to the intervention group. The remaining 10 studies provided no intervention to the control groups. The outcome variable of interest, i.e., burnout, was measured at baseline (n=27), immediate post-intervention (n=24), and during one-month (n=8), two-month (n=2), three-month (n=11), six-month (n=7), and 12-month (n=1) follow-ups. A total of 10 studies measured burnout only at baseline and immediately post-intervention.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Overview of burnout interventions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t005

The most prevalent type of intervention among the articles was single interventions (n=19) that involved various activities. The most implemented single intervention was MBIs, which included activities such as mindful breathing exercises, meditation, and self-care practices. Regarding mixed interventions, the most combined approaches were MBIs with CBT (n=3). Activities such as cognitive and emotional awareness, breath and sensory awareness, mindful exercise (movement, listening, meditation), empowerment, and resilience building were included in the mixed interventions. Commonly, those carrying out the interventions were mindfulness-trained researchers, certified clinical psychologists, and licensed mental health counselors.

Outcomes of burnout interventions

Next, Table 6 provides a summary of the effects of burnout intervention. Out of 27 studies, 24 reported successful reductions in nurse burnout. Notably, nine studies demonstrated a highly significant effect (p<0.001) in reducing burnout at various stages. Out of these nine studies, six utilized single-focused interventions such as MBIs [31,33,47,49], psychodrama-based psychological empowerment [46], and sound therapy [45]. The remaining three studies [41,44,51] incorporated a comprehensive intervention approach consisting of mixed interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), self-care strategies, and communication and social skill training. Successful burnout interventions consistently resulted in significant reductions in EE and DP scores, alongside an increase in PA scores. While most studies focused on the three main domains of burnout (EE, DP, PA), some also explored other outcomes related to secondary traumatic stress (STS) and compassion satisfaction (CS) [35,44,48]. On the other hand, three studies did not document significant decreases in any burnout dimensions following the intervention, either among the intervention groups individually or when compared to control groups [34,50,53].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Summary of intervention and outcome on burnout.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t006

Effectiveness of burnout interventions over time

In addition, Table 7 compares the efficacy of single and mixed intervention strategies across various follow-up periods for the 24 studies that reported significant burnout reduction. Most single intervention strategies (n=16) followed nurses for less than three months (n=10), with only six studies following up to six months and none extending to 12 months or more. The majority were delivered physically (n=8), followed by combined physical and digital (n=4) and digital alone (n=4). Most single interventions, like MBIs, CBT, and emotional regulation, demonstrated short-term effectiveness, i.e., significant reductions in burnout symptoms immediately post-intervention and up to two months in some cases. As a single intervention, MBIs proved most effective when delivered through combined physical and digital modes, with sustained burnout reduction for up to six months [48]. However, a study by Lu et al. (2023) [32] that utilized a similar intervention showed that significant burnout reduction could only be sustained immediately post-intervention, with no difference in burnout symptoms observed when followed up to six months. The differences in effectiveness could be attributed to the activities used in the mindfulness interventions. On the other hand, the same intervention maintained effectiveness for three months when separately split into physical [31] or digital [52] formats. These findings suggest that single interventions can sustain effects for up to three months on physical or digital platforms [31,46,52], but a combined delivery mode is more effective for extending outcomes to six months [48].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 7. Studies with significant burnout reduction at different follow up time points (n=24).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322282.t007

In studies using mixed intervention strategies (n=8), six followed participants for 3–6 months post-intervention, while two had shorter follow-ups (<3 months). None extended follow-up to 12 months or more. Most interventions were delivered physically (n=5), with some using a combination of physical and digital approaches (n=1) or digital delivery solely (n=2). The most common interventions used in combination with others were MBIs and CBT. Of the four studies that applied CBT in person and tracked nurses for up to six months, only one study, which combined CBT with self-care, communication, and social skills training, demonstrated significant burnout reduction over the entire six-month follow-up period [51]. In contrast, three other studies that integrated CBT with MBIs as well as motivational, acceptance, and commitment therapies showed significant burnout reductions, but only for up to three months [36,37,53]. These findings suggest the importance of incorporating self-care and interpersonal skill enhancement to effectively reduce nurse burnout. Meanwhile, combining MBIs with interventions like self-compassion and resilience also led to significant burnout reduction for up to three months [35,44], while combination with approaches such as schema therapy, CBT, empathy skills training, and stress management showed effectiveness for up to two months [40,41]. However, the lack of long-term follow-up in these studies leaves uncertainty about sustained efficacy over longer periods.

A comparison between single and mixed intervention strategies showed that as a single intervention, MBIs yielded mixed outcomes when delivered via a combined physical and digital platform; one study showed results that lasted up to six months [48], while another study’s effects ended immediately post-intervention [32]. However, as a mixed intervention, MBIs combined with supportive practices can sustain positive results up to three months post-intervention [35,44]. Similarly, CBT when applied as a single intervention via a physical platform, was effective only for up to one month [38]. However, when CBT was combined with self-care and interpersonal skills training via a similar mode of delivery, the results were sustained for up to six months [51], indicating that combining certain therapeutic approaches can enhance and prolong the effectiveness of burnout interventions, making them more effective than single-intervention approaches.

Principal findings

This review aimed to explore existing person-directed psychoeducational burnout interventions for alleviating burnout symptoms among nurses and analyze evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. Of the 14,092 abstracts screened, 27 studies fulfilled the predetermined inclusion criteria. Based on the studies reviewed, psychoeducational interventions were found to be effective as both preventive and reactive tools for combating nurse burnout. This notion was also supported by a previous study that showed psychoeducational interventions as not only providing early measures to prevent burnout but also offering effective strategies for managing it once it manifests, underscoring the importance of a proactive approach to burnout management strategy [55]. Echoing prior research, psychoeducational interventions are instrumental not merely in relaying information but in fostering self-awareness and developing coping mechanisms that can safeguard long-term health and professional stability [56]. Additionally, they equip nurses with essential self-care skills and enhance resilience against workplace stressors, which also offer therapeutic benefits [16]. These findings highlight the comprehensive scope of psychoeducational interventions that encompass cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of individuals.

Out of the 27 included studies in this review, 24 reported that person-directed psychoeducational interventions were significantly effective in reducing burnout symptoms. Additionally, six of these studies exhibited highly significant effectiveness at different stages of follow-up, with five implementing single types of intervention and only one study applying mixed types of intervention. The most common single intervention that significantly reduced nurses’ burnout was MBIs, which included activities like mindful breathing, meditation, mindful eating, and mindful exercises, all of which functioned to improve mental health, boost self-care, and enhance physical activity. As shown in previous studies, MBIs have been reported to significantly reduce stress, anxiety, and depression among nurses, notably when practicing Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) [57]. In addition, mindful exercises used in MBIs also encourage nurses to be more physically active, resulting in reduced cortisol and increased endorphin levels, subsequently enhancing adaptive stress responses, improving mood and social skills, building resilience, reducing exhaustion, and regulating sleep [58–61].

Apart from that, this systematic review enhances the current literature on the effect of psychoeducational interventions on various domains of burnout. For instance, MBIs were found to significantly reduce emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and increase personal accomplishment. These findings were consistent with a previous meta-analysis that showed MBIs as effective interventions in reducing burnout [62]. Although burnout intervention effectively reduced emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, its impact on personal accomplishment was less straightforward. For instance, a meta-analysis published in 2016 found that improvement in reduced PA lasted only six months among nurses who received burnout intervention, as compared to improvement that lasted up to a year in EE and DP [63]. A similar observation was made by Brady et al. (2020) [64]. The lack of impact exerted by the burnout intervention on the domains of PA can be attributed to the problem-solving-centric components, such as empowering the participants with stress reduction and coping skills that are more beneficial for the domains of EE and DP [23]. However, a previous meta-analysis demonstrated that combining burnout interventions with others, such as organizational-directed interventions, significantly boosted personal accomplishment among HCPs, attributed to the synergistic effect that amplifies the overall positive impact of the intervention [65].

Furthermore, our systematic review demonstrates that combining multiple psychoeducational interventions significantly reduces nurse burnout through a holistic approach, providing a better solution than single interventions in tackling the complex nature of burnout. This result aligns with Aryankhesal et al. (2019) [66], which demonstrated notable burnout reductions in physicians and nurses using integrated methods. In addition, mixed interventions have also been shown to improve the physical and mental health of nurses [67]. In terms of the effectiveness duration, a previous study using mixed intervention to tackle burnout among inpatient elderly care nursing staff reported a longer burnout reduction of up to one year compared to only a short-term reduction at one month when using a single intervention [68].

Like previous studies, the most frequently used mixed intervention to alleviate burnout found in our systematic review was MBIs and CBT, with or without additional intervention [36,41,51]. As shown in the previous study, this synergy leverages their complementary strengths where mindfulness enhances present-moment awareness and non-judgmental acceptance of one’s experiences, which was vital for effectively engaging with CBT’s techniques of cognitive restructuring [69,70]. Meanwhile, behavioral modification in CBT helps counter maladaptive thinking and improve stress responses by identifying and challenging cognitive distortions and implementing strategies that promote adaptive coping mechanisms [71]. Furthermore, by combining mindfulness practices with cognitive restructuring, individuals can develop a more balanced perspective on stressors and enhance their coping skills. Research suggests that integrating mindfulness and CBT yields promising outcomes in addressing burnout, as first reported by a meta-analysis in 2010 [72] whereby interventions combining mindfulness and CBT produced large effects in reducing symptoms of burnout. Since then, several reviews [73,74] have also presented evidence that combined interventions are more effective in reducing rates of relapsed burnout.

The next important strategy commonly found used alongside other interventions to reduce burnout involves enhancing professional competency. This includes communication training that focuses on improving interpersonal skills and team and leadership communication. A previous study showed that positive communication skills were a good buffer of EE, besides promoting self-actualization [75] and enhancing resilience [76], ultimately reducing nurse burnout. Apart from individual benefits, enhanced communication skills also create a more supportive and efficient work environment, collectively reducing stress and burnout, and leading to better job satisfaction and overall well-being [77]. Other than effective communication, burnout intervention can also be a combination of other activities such as coping strategies, emotional regulation skills, and resilience, which were reported by Lee and Cha (2023) [23], to be effective in changing health professionals’ burnout to wellness. By combining different psychoeducational techniques, mixed interventions can tackle the multiple aspects of burnout more comprehensively.

Apart from the intervention components, the delivery mode of these psychoeducational interventions is also crucial in the effectiveness and sustainability of burnout management. Physical modes, such as face-to-face individual counselling and group therapy sessions, offer personalised support and are highly effective in providing emotional support and reducing feelings of isolation [78]. Our review found that the commonest delivery method for burnout interventions was via face-to-face group programs, similar to Lee and Cha [23]. Physical activities positively impact psychoneuroimmunology and mental health via changes in stress hormones [79]. However, the physical mode of delivery comes with its own set of challenges, such as the need to accommodate individual logistical and schedule preferences. Digital delivery methods, including web-based programs, virtual support groups, and online/offline self-help modules, offer flexibility and broader access. These web-based interventions have been reported to be effective in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, especially during the lockdown period of the COVID-10 pandemic [80]. The pandemic has accelerated the development of virtual encounters, but the downside of the digital mode of delivery was the difficulty in obtaining and sustaining participant engagement [81]. For instance, Barrett et al. (2021) [82] indicated that studies using web-based tools may have higher attrition rates in burnout intervention programs. Given the pros and cons of both modes, the combination of physical and online programs has been attempted by incorporating human interactions into digital interventions [83]. As per our findings, five studies demonstrated significant burnout reduction when digital modes of delivery were combined with physical sessions, such as Luo et al. (2023) [33] and Safaeian et al. (2023) [40], as supported by Ginoux et al. (2019) [84]. By deriving the benefits of both physical and digital modes of intervention, researchers and stakeholders can ensure optimal participant engagement and favourable outcomes [85].

The findings from this systematic review underscore the importance of comprehensive, multi-component psychoeducational interventions that can effectively address burnout among nurses and be sustained over a long time. Single interventions, such as MBSR and CBT often showed short-term efficacy but lacked long-term sustainability. For instance, in one study, MBSR delivered in physical and digital formats was effective for up to six months [48]. However, in another study, its effects were only limited to immediate post-intervention [32]. However, combining these single interventions with other supportive practices like self-compassion, resilience, and interpersonal skills training has demonstrated sustained burnout reduction for longer periods [35,44]. Combining CBT with self-care strategies and interpersonal skills training was also effective, with results sustained for up to six months [51]. Furthermore, pairing psychoeducation with psychotherapy has been shown to significantly boost the overall effectiveness of mental health care, deepening the understanding of personal well-being and adaptive strategies [86]. Given their multifaceted benefits, psychoeducational interventions are recommended as fundamental components of mental health strategies for mitigating burnout [56]. Nevertheless, despite this review demonstrating the potential of psychoeducational interventions to mitigate nurse burnout effectively, the wide diversity of approaches and their implementation across various modalities introduces variability that affects outcomes and poses challenges for synthesizing findings or establishing universal recommendations. This variability, including differences in intervention design, duration, delivery methods, and participant characteristics, can undermine the dependability of findings by making it difficult to compare results across studies or draw consistent conclusions on efficacy. This underscores the importance of tailoring interventions to specific contexts, such as addressing the unique stressors of specific environments or adapting programs to align with differing organizational cultures and resource availability.

Moreover, many studies included in this systematic review were limited to short-term follow-ups despite initial positive impacts, leaving the long-term sustainability of burnout interventions for nurses unclear. Aryankhesal et al. (2019) [66] highlighted the importance of prolonged follow-ups to determine the true long-term effects of these interventions. Repeated interventions might also help maintain reduced burnout levels over time, as suggested by Günüşen and Üstün (2010) [87]. Some studies failed to proceed with long-term follow-up due to high attrition rate [40] as well as constraints of human and financial resources [47,52]. Because of the cessation of follow-ups at specific time points, it could not be determined whether the observed lack of long-term effectiveness was real or simply a result of insufficient follow-up data. Therefore, likeminded researchers in this field should explore more systematic and feasible approaches to gauge long-term effects, as these interventions could possibly remain effective over time.

Limitations

Several limitations emerged from this review and should be considered when interpreting the results. Many studies were conducted in single centers or specific regions, hence limiting the generalizability of the results to broader populations or different healthcare settings. Furthermore, most studies only assessed short-term effects up to three months post-intervention. The lack of long-term follow-up led to a suboptimal understanding of the sustained impact of burnout interventions. In addition, the studies analyzed in this review applied different instruments to measure burnout and could have resulted in heterogeneity. On top of that, the reliance on self-reporting to measure outcomes could have led to under or over-reporting of burnout symptoms depending on personal perceptions or social desirability, further affecting the accuracy of the results. Additionally, the studies generally lacked analysis of cultural factors, with interventions often designed without explicit consideration of sociocultural contexts, making it challenging to draw conclusions about the impact of cultural differences on the intervention effectiveness. Many studies used quasi-experimental designs (n=14), which are more prone to biases, such as selection bias and confounding factors, compared to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [88,89], limiting the generalizability of findings and thus making it harder to determine the effects of the intervention. In addition, discrepancies in intervention format, training content, delivery methods, and follow-up duration further highlight the need to address contextual factors such as the target population’s needs, organizational environments, and cultural influences. While this review provides valuable insights into the efficacy of psychoeducational interventions, future research should aim to standardize intervention protocols, evaluation frameworks, and outcome measures. By doing so, interventions can be better designed to ensure consistent and effective results across diverse settings.

Moreover, implementation barriers may influence the outcomes of the test interventions. Only three studies described obstacles encountered in this review [36,51,54], including changes in hospital operations, challenges for participants in attending sessions due to time limitations, conflicting work schedules, increased workload, and the adjustment period required for transitioning to video-conference delivery instead of in-person sessions. These factors could have contributed to high attrition rates as well as diminished the reliability and validity of the findings. Based on the National Registry of Effective Prevention Programs’ study quality assessment scale, an attrition rate should be lower than 20% to be considered acceptable and favorable [90–92]. However, the attrition rates of the reviewed studies ranged from 0% [29,36] to 60.7% [30], with three studies not reporting attrition rates altogether [33,34,40]. Furthermore, most of the studies primarily focused on a few similar types of interventions, namely MBIs and CBT. There was also limited exploration of the delivery modes of the interventions, such as the impact of digital versus physical delivery. Such a narrow focus may have generated limited evidence about other potentially effective approaches.

The review process also had several limitations. It relied solely on electronic databases, potentially missing unpublished or grey literature, which might contain valuable but unpublished findings on burnout interventions among nurses. The review was restricted to English-language publications, which may have excluded relevant studies in other languages. Furthermore, by focusing on studies from the last decade, the review aimed to reflect current practices but may have introduced selection bias.

Recommendations for future research

Based on our findings, several areas for future research can be considered to better understand the effectiveness of psychoeducational burnout interventions among nurses. To ensure long-term sustainability of the interventions, future research should emphasize longer follow-up periods, extending from six months to 12 months. A longer follow-up period allows a more comprehensive evaluation of the sustained impact of interventions; whether initial benefits are maintained, diminish, or evolve over time. All these are essential in providing a clearer understanding of the durability of intervention effects in real-world contexts. This also will assist in identifying any late-emerging effects or the need for booster sessions. Furthermore, evidence of sustained impact is critical to inform policy decisions and support the scaling-up of effective interventions, as short-term gains alone may be insufficient to justify long-term investment.

Apart from that, even though implementation of targeted interventions in high-pressure specialized settings such as Intensive Care Units and Oncology Units is particularly beneficial, future research should be expanded from single-center or localized regions to include diverse healthcare settings such as community health centers and specialized facilities in both rural and urban areas. A broader range of nursing populations such as those from different specialties, career stages, and cultural backgrounds can be recruited to enhance the generalizability and applicability of the interventions.

As mentioned in the limitation section, findings from existing studies included in this review may not fully capture cultural variability across burnout management. The importance of sociocultural contexts cannot be sidelined in future research. The development of culturally-sensitive interventions are more likely to align with the values, beliefs, and health practices of target populations, thereby improving their acceptability, relevance, and effectiveness. Recognizing and addressing sociocultural differences also helps identify potential barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainability of these interventions. For this purpose, a qualitative research approach will be preferred as it can offer valuable insights into contextual nuances such as workplace norms, coping mechanisms, and attitudes toward mental health and burnout. Such research could complement quantitative findings and provide a more holistic understanding of how interventions can be tailored to fit diverse cultural contexts. A higher representation of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may enhance the understanding of how cultural and resource differences may influence the success of these interventions. Additionally, incorporating a combination of both subjective self-reports and objective measures, such as physiological indicators (e.g., cortisol levels) and performance metrics (e.g., absenteeism rates) may help to reduce potential bias. This multimodal outcome reporting approach can provide a more comprehensive assessment of intervention effectiveness.

Exploring a broader range of potentially effective psychoeducational interventions, such as narrative therapy, art therapy, resilience training, and peer support, alongside commonly studied methods like MBIs and CBT, can help identify new and innovative solutions for burnout reduction. Given the increasing use of technology in healthcare, flexible and accessible technology-enhanced interventions, such as mobile apps and telehealth, should be evaluated for their feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in comparison with traditional in-person methods. These intervention approaches may be more practical for nurses working in remote or resource-limited settings. This review also did not explicitly assess implementation fidelity, and the majority of included studies lacked sufficient reporting on key fidelity components, such as facilitator training, adherence monitoring, and quality assurance mechanisms. Consequently, a comprehensive synthesis and analysis of implementation fidelity across interventions was not feasible. Future studies should use standardized protocols and incorporate rigorous measures of implementation fidelity (e.g., observation checklists, adherence measures, and feedback mechanisms) to better assess the true impact of the interventions. More importantly, these components should be reported more consistently to enhance replicability of intervention delivery across diverse contexts.

Another area worth exploring is the development of personalized interventions customized to an individual’s unique needs based on machine learning algorithms to predict the most effective intervention components based on personal characteristics and work stressors. Furthermore, integrating these interventions with organizational measures has been shown to enhance their effectiveness and yield long-lasting benefits(85). This highlighted the benefit of simultaneously addressing multiple dimensions of burnout, making interventions more comprehensive and effective. Finally, implementation science frameworks should be applied in future research to identify barriers and facilitators to successful adoption and integration of the interventions into routine clinical practice. To secure buy-ins from stakeholders, economic evaluation is also the way forward to provide cost-related benefits for policymakers and healthcare administrators to make informed decisions about resource allocation for burnout management programs.