PREVALENCE OF BURNOUT SYNDROME IN HEALTHCARE WORKERS IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA, AND ASIA FROM 2018 TO 2022
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The article explores issues concerning prevalence of burnout syndrome in healthcare workers in North and South America, and Asia from 2018 to 2022. Thus for this purpose, a great number of scientific sources that are related to the topic of the research were examined. Healthcare professionals face a tremendous strain during the performing of their activities that often may lead to stress and burnout syndrome. In particular, duties of healthcare workers include high responsibility for life and health of a patient, self-discipline, urgent decision-making, empathy, high productivity during extreme conditions, constant psychological and intellectual tension. During the past 30+ years, burnout syndrome was studied by scientists, practitioners, and also by general public all around the world. It should be noted, that nowadays a lot of employees (in particular, healthcare workers) are faced with rapid changes in our modern working life, namely, time pressure, pressure of higher productivity/quality of work, need to learn new skills, increasing demands of adaptation to new types of work, hectic jobs, etc., that in result may cause burnout syndrome. Burnout syndrome of healthcare workers is usually associated with poor quality of medical care and may lead to medical errors, exhaustion, inefficiency, and conflicts. High levels of burnout syndrome among medical professionals of different countries around the world vary from 7,4% to 66%. The issues concerning prevalence of burnout syndrome in healthcare workers in North and South America, and Asia from 2018 to 2022 have not been sufficiently identified and also require more detailed research. Research of scientists that used the Maslach Burnout Inventory (hereinafter – the MBI), and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (hereinafter – the CBI) to research the burnout syndrome in healthcare workers of different specialties (including "Family Medicine") were included in this article. Based on the conducted research, the following conclusions can be reached: the research carried out to identify prevalence of burnout syndrome in healthcare workers in North and South America, and Asia from 2018 to 2022 found out the presence of burnout syndrome in healthcare workers ranging from 1,3% to 82,1%. Moreover, prevalence of burnout syndrome in healthcare workers in North and South America varied from 1,3% to 73,5%, whereas in Asia it varied from 5,2% to 82,1%. Factors that associated with burnout in healthcare workers in North and South America, and Asia were examined. The majority of scientific studies on the identification of the prevalence of burnout syndrome in healthcare workers from 2018 to 2022: a) in North and South America have been conducted in Canada, the United States of America, the Federative Republic of Brazil, and the Argentine Republic, etc., whereas b) in Asia have been conducted in China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, and Kazakhstan, etc. Intensivists, physiatrists, resident physicians, oncologists, general surgeons, internal medicine physicians, and emergency medicine physicians are special categories of healthcare workers who are at a high risk of formation of burnout syndrome that may develop due to the specific of professional activity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».