Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · May 20, 2026
Reinforces what was already believed, rather than introducing something new.
This systematic review synthesized 10 compassion fatigue prediction models for nurses from 7 studies, finding a pooled AUC of 0.819 (95% CI 0.746–0.892) indicating fair discrimination. However, most included studies carried high risk of bias and methodological limitations, with heterogeneity in predictor selection and validation approaches reducing confidence in clinical generalizability.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Prediction models developed to identify risk of compassion fatigue among nurses; no restriction by clinical setting noted in search criteria.. Intervention: Ten prediction models (seven logistic regression, one nomogram, one decision tree, one random forest) developed to predict compassion fatigue risk in nurses.
Incidence of compassion fatigue among clinical nurses ranged from 49.41% to 83.88% Individual model AUC ranged from 0.704 to 0.939 Pooled AUC of six validated models was 0.819 (95% CI 0.746–0.892)
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
Clinicians should use existing compassion fatigue prediction models for nurses with caution given high risk of bias in most studies and lack of robust external validation. Future models with larger samples, rigorous designs, and multi-center validation are needed before widespread clinical adoption can be recommended.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 prediction models from 7 studies synthesizing performance data; pooled AUC of 0.819 indicates fair discrimination but most included studies have high risk of bias, limiting confidence in clinical utility.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
Clinicians should use existing compassion fatigue prediction models for nurses with caution given high risk of bias in most studies and lack of robust external validation. Future models with larger samples, rigorous designs, and multi-center validation are needed before widespread clinical adoption can be recommended.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
Background. Compassion fatigue has serious consequences for nursing staff, patients and healthcare organizations. The development of predictive models specifically designed for nurses' compassion fatigue has received considerable attention in recent years, the diversity of high-risk factors makes them difficult to measure and use in clinical settings, and the quality and applicability of these models have not been systematically reviewed.Objective. This systematic review evaluates existing risk prediction models for nurse compassion fatigue, assesses their performance and clinical utility to guide early risk identification and model optimization.Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Methods. The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) were searched from inception to January 21, 2026. Data from selected studies were extracted, including study design, data source, outcome definition, sample size, predictors, model development and performance. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability.Results. A total of 1268 studies were retrieved, and after the selection process, ten prediction models from seven studies were included in this review. Seven models used logistic regression, while the remaining respectively utilized a nomogram, decision tree, and random forest. Only one study conducted both internal and external validation. Social support, job satisfaction, job stress and working years were important predictors of compassion fatigue among nurses. The incidence of compassion fatigue among clinical nurses ranged from 49.41 % to 83.88 %. The reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.704 to 0.939. Most studies were found to have a high risk of bias, primarily due to poor reporting of the statistical analysis domain. The pooled AUC value of the six validated models was 0.819 (95 % confidence interval=0.746∼0.892), indicating a fair level of discrimination.Conclusions. Although the included studies reported a certain level of predictive performance in the compassion fatigue prediction model for nurses, most of them were found to have a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST checklist. Future research should prioritize the development of new models with larger sample sizes, rigorous study designs, and multi-center external validation.Registration. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024504226).
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.