Dataset Information

Predictors of Occupational Burnout: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to review occupational burnout predictors, considering their type, effect size and role (protective versus harmful), and the overall evidence of their importance. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched from January 1990 to August 2018 for longitudinal studies examining any predictor of occupational burnout among workers. We arranged predictors in four families and 13 subfamilies of homogenous constructs. The plots of z-scores per predictor type enabled graphical discrimination of the effects. The vote-counting and binomial test enabled discrimination of the effect direction. The size of the effect was estimated using Cohen's formula. The risk of bias and the overall evidence were assessed using the MEVORECH and GRADE methods, respectively. Eighty-five studies examining 261 predictors were included. We found a moderate quality of evidence for the harmful effects of the job demands subfamily (six predictors), and negative job attitudes, with effect sizes from small to medium. We also found a moderate quality of evidence for the protective effect of adaptive coping (small effect sizes) and leisure (small to medium effect sizes). Preventive interventions for occupational burnout might benefit from intervening on the established predictors regarding reducing job demands and negative job attitudes and promoting adaptive coping and leisure.

SUBMITTER: Shoman Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8430894 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictors of Occupational Burnout: A Systematic Review.

Shoman Yara Y El May Emna E Marca Sandy Carla SC Wild Pascal P Bianchi Renzo R Bugge Merete Drevvatne MD Caglayan Cigdem C Cheptea Dimitru D Gnesi Marco M Godderis Lode L Kiran Sibel S McElvenny Damien M DM Mediouni Zakia Z Mehlum Ingrid Sivesind IS Mijakoski Dragan D Minov Jordan J van der Molen Henk F HF Nena Evangelia E Otelea Marina M Guseva Canu Irina I

International journal of environmental research and public health 20210831 17

We aimed to review occupational burnout predictors, considering their type, effect size and role (protective versus harmful), and the overall evidence of their importance. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched from January 1990 to August 2018 for longitudinal studies examining any predictor of occupational burnout among workers. We arranged predictors in four families and 13 subfamilies of homogenous constructs. The plots of z-scores per predictor type enabled graphical discrimination of t ...[more]

PMID: 34501782

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOne potential barrier to optimal healthcare may be provider burnout or occupational-related stress in the workplace. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review to identify the predictors of burnout among US. healthcare providers.DesignSystematic review using in-depth critical appraisal to assess risk of bias and present the quality of evidence in synthesised results from the prognostic studies.Data sourcesWe searched 11 databases, registries, existing reviews and contacted experts through 4 October 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all studies evaluating potential predictors and documenting the presence and absence of associations with burnout assessed as a multidimensional construct. We excluded studies that relied solely on a single continuous subscale of burnout. Data were abstracted from eligible studies and checked for accuracy by a content expert and a methodologist.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened citations and full-text publications using predetermined eligibility criteria.ResultsThe 141 identified studies evaluated a range of burnout predictors. Findings for demographic characteristics were conflicting or show no association. Workplace factors, such as workload, work/life balance, job autonomy and perceived support from leadership, had stronger associations with risk for burnout. Mental health factors, such as anxiety, and physical health risks may increase the risk, although the direction of these associations is unclear as few prospective studies exist to address this question. Factors such as social support appear to have a protective effect.ConclusionWe found the most evidence for workplace, mental health and psychosocial factors in predicting burnout but limited evidence for other potential predictors. However, more prospective studies are needed to improve our understanding about how to prevent provider burnout.Prospero registration numberCRD4202014836.

Project description:ImportanceBurnout is a self-reported job-related syndrome increasingly recognized as a critical factor affecting physicians and their patients. An accurate estimate of burnout prevalence among physicians would have important health policy implications, but the overall prevalence is unknown.ObjectiveTo characterize the methods used to assess burnout and provide an estimate of the prevalence of physician burnout.Data sources and study selectionSystematic search of EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE/PubMed, psycARTICLES, and psycINFO for studies on the prevalence of burnout in practicing physicians (ie, excluding physicians in training) published before June 1, 2018.Data extraction and synthesisBurnout prevalence and study characteristics were extracted independently by 3 investigators. Although meta-analytic pooling was planned, variation in study designs and burnout ascertainment methods, as well as statistical heterogeneity, made quantitative pooling inappropriate. Therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively.Main outcomes and measuresPoint or period prevalence of burnout assessed by questionnaire.ResultsBurnout prevalence data were extracted from 182 studies involving 109 628 individuals in 45 countries published between 1991 and 2018. In all, 85.7% (156/182) of studies used a version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to assess burnout. Studies variably reported prevalence estimates of overall burnout or burnout subcomponents: 67.0% (122/182) on overall burnout, 72.0% (131/182) on emotional exhaustion, 68.1% (124/182) on depersonalization, and 63.2% (115/182) on low personal accomplishment. Studies used at least 142 unique definitions for meeting overall burnout or burnout subscale criteria, indicating substantial disagreement in the literature on what constituted burnout. Studies variably defined burnout based on predefined cutoff scores or sample quantiles and used markedly different cutoff definitions. Among studies using instruments based on the MBI, there were at least 47 distinct definitions of overall burnout prevalence and 29, 26, and 26 definitions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment prevalence, respectively. Overall burnout prevalence ranged from 0% to 80.5%. Emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment prevalence ranged from 0% to 86.2%, 0% to 89.9%, and 0% to 87.1%, respectively. Because of inconsistencies in definitions of and assessment methods for burnout across studies, associations between burnout and sex, age, geography, time, specialty, and depressive symptoms could not be reliably determined.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, there was substantial variability in prevalence estimates of burnout among practicing physicians and marked variation in burnout definitions, assessment methods, and study quality. These findings preclude definitive conclusions about the prevalence of burnout and highlight the importance of developing a consensus definition of burnout and of standardizing measurement tools to assess the effects of chronic occupational stress on physicians.

Project description:AimsOccupational Burnout (OB) is currently measured through several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and some of them have become widely used in occupational health research and practice. We, therefore, aimed to review and grade the psychometric validity of the five OB PROMs considered as valid for OB measure in mental health professionals (the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Pines' Burnout Measure (BM), the Psychologist Burnout Inventory (PBI), the OLdenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI)).MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. We reviewed studies published between January 1980 and September 2018 following a methodological framework, in which each step of PROM validation, the reference method, analytical technics and result interpretation criteria were assessed. Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments we evaluated the risk of bias in studies assessing content and criterion validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing and responsiveness of each PROM. Finally, we assessed the level of evidence for the validity of each PROM using the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 6541 studies, 19 of which were included for review. Fifteen studies dealt with MBI whereas BM, PBI, OLBI and CBI were each examined in only one study. OLBI had the most complete validation, followed by CBI, MBI, BM and PBI, respectively. When examining the result interpretation correctness, the strongest disagreement was observed for MBI (27% of results), BM (25%) and CBI (17%). There was no disagreement regarding PBI and OLBI. For OLBI and CBI, the quality of evidence for sufficient content validity, the crucial psychometric property, was moderate; for MBI, BM and PBI, it was very low.ConclusionTo be validly and reliably used in medical research and practice, PROM should exhibit robust psychometric properties. Among the five PROMs reviewed, CBI and, to a lesser extent, OLBI meet this prerequisite. The cross-cultural validity of these PROMs was beyond the scope of our work and should be addressed in the future. Moreover, the development of a diagnostic standard for OB would be helpful to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the PROMs and further reexamine their validity.The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42019124621).

Project description:Objectives: The overall objectives of this rapid scoping review are to (a) identify the common triggers of stress, burnout, and depression faced by women in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) explore individual-, organizational-, and systems-level interventions that can support the well-being of women HCWs during a pandemic. Design: This scoping review is registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and was guided by the JBI guide to scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension to scoping reviews. A systematic search of literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and ERIC) was conducted from inception until June 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria. Interventions: We included review articles and primary studies that reported on stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs; that primarily focused on women; and that included the percentage or number of women included. All English language studies from any geographical setting where COVID-19 has affected the population were reviewed. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Studies reporting on mental health outcomes (e.g., stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs), interventions to support mental health well-being were included. Results: Of the 2,803 papers found, 28 were included. The triggers of stress, burnout and depression are grouped under individual-, organizational-, and systems-level factors. There is a limited amount of evidence on effective interventions that prevents anxiety, stress, burnout and depression during a pandemic. Conclusions: Our preliminary findings show that women HCWs are at increased risk for stress, burnout, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. These negative outcomes are triggered by individual level factors such as lack of social support; family status; organizational factors such as access to personal protective equipment or high workload; and systems-level factors such as prevalence of COVID-19, rapidly changing public health guidelines, and a lack of recognition at work.

Dataset Information

Predictors of Occupational Burnout: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Predictors of Occupational Burnout: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets