This literature review aimed to determine the level of burnout, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction, as well as their associated risks and protective factors, in healthcare professionals during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. We reviewed 2858 records obtained from the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, and finally included 76 in this review. The main results we found showed an increase in the rate of burnout, dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and compassion fatigue; a reduction in personal accomplishment; and levels of compassion satisfaction similar to those before the pandemic. The main risk factors associated with burnout were anxiety, depression, and insomnia, along with some sociodemographic variables such as being a woman or a nurse or working directly with COVID-19 patients. Comparable results were found for compassion fatigue, but information regarding compassion satisfaction was lacking. The main protective factors were resilience and social support.

The current meta-analysis aims to investigate and clarify existing research on virtual reality (VR) as a medium to elicit empathy. An exhaustive literature search (updated to February 29, 2020) enabled us to locate seven published articles, yielding a total of nine independent samples. The results reveal statistically significant positive changes in perspective-taking outcomes after VR exposure (d₊ = 0.51 [95 percent CI: 0.15–0.88]) but they did not note in empathy (d₊ = 0.21 [95 percent confidence interval, CI: −0.37–0.79]). A potential limitation of this work is the low number of studies included. Implications and directions for theoretical development and empirical research are also discussed.

Background: This research presents a short version of the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, one of the most frequently used questionnaires in the arena of applied healthcare investigation. It measures burnout (BO), compassion fatigue (CF), and compassion satisfaction (CS). Methods: A 9-item version of the ProQOL was developed. In Study 1, this short version, which used items from version IV of the ProQOL, was administered to 817 palliative care professionals from Spain, Argentina, and Brazil. In Study 2, the same nine items, but this time from version V of the ProQOL, were administered to 296 Spanish palliative care professionals. Results: Study 1: The Short ProQOL showed an adequate internal structure, and invariance across the countries studied (χ²(106) = 185.620 (p < 0.001), CFI = .929, RMSEA = 0.058 [0.044, 0.072], SRMR = 0.081). Argentinians showed higher levels of BO (mean difference = 0.172, p = 0.042, Cohen’s d = 0.168), whereas Brazilians showed higher levels of CF (Mean difference = 0.384, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.352). Study 2: the Short ProQOL again showed adequate internal structure and reliability (χ²(24) = 134.504 (p < 0.001); CFI = 0.953; RMSEA = 0.126 [0.106, 0.147]; SRMR = 0.063), and was related to coping with death, self-compassion, and self-care. Conclusions: The Short ProQOL could help facilitate the application of harmonizing measurements and its use for cross-cultural comparisons and occupational health monitoring was satisfactory.