Personality–Burnout Associations in Nurses: Data and Materials for a Systematic Methodological Review

Résumé fourni par la source

Research hypothesis and purpose This dataset supports a systematic review and meta-analysis examining associations between personality traits and burnout among practicing nurses. The review also evaluated how methodological differences across studies affect comparability and quantitative synthesis. What the data contain The dataset includes review-level information from 31 included studies: country, study design, nursing population, personality framework and instrument, burnout instrument, principal findings, and identification of the 10 studies contributing comparable Pearson correlations to the primary meta-analysis. It also contains pooled results for neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. How the data were gathered Studies were identified through systematic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO from database inception to 31 March 2026. Eligible studies involved practicing nurses, used validated personality measures, and assessed burnout using validated instruments. The review followed PRISMA 2020 reporting and JBI evidence-synthesis guidance. Notable findings Ten studies comprising 3,599 nurses were quantitatively synthesized. Neuroticism showed the strongest positive association with burnout (r = 0.416, 95% CI 0.270–0.543). Extraversion (r = −0.259), agreeableness (r = −0.276), conscientiousness (r = −0.258), and openness (r = −0.104) were inversely associated with burnout. Heterogeneity was substantial across traits (I² = 77.14%–96.19%). Interpretation and use These are review-level data, not individual participant data. Similar terminology across studies does not necessarily indicate methodological equivalence because personality frameworks, burnout instruments, populations, and effect metrics differed. The dataset can therefore be used to examine methodological compatibility, identify studies suitable for pooling, and support reproducible evidence synthesis. Limitations The files do not contain individual-level participant data, the complete per-study correlation matrix for all five traits, or the original R/metafor analysis code.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.