Experiences of Burnout and Coping Strategies Utilized by Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-related stress and burnout have been found to lead to job dissatisfaction, low-organizational commitment, absenteeism, and high turnover. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the burnout experiences of occupational therapists practicing in Ontario and to describe the practice implications and coping strategies employed. METHODS: Data for this mixed methods study were collected using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey, Areas of Worklife Survey, focus groups, and interviews in the hermeneutics tradition. FINDINGS: High levels of emotional exhaustion were reported by 34.8% of participants, high levels of cynicism by 43.5%, and low professional efficacy by 24.6%. Practice issues included excessive demands on time, conflict, and lack of autonomy and respect. Coping strategies included spending time with family and maintaining professional/personal balance, control of work responsibilities, maintaining a sense of humor, and self-awareness/self-monitoring. IMPLICATIONS: This study contributes to understanding the practice challenges for occupational therapists, factors that contribute to therapist burnout, and strategies employed to maintain competent practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".