MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emotional Implications of Working in a Burn Unit

2006· article· en· W2070563233 on OpenAlexaff
Ally Murji, Manuel Gómez, Judy Knighton, Joel Fish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepersonalizationEmotional exhaustionBurnoutMedicineStressorCoping (psychology)Occupational stressHealth careBurn outIntensive care unitFamily medicineClinical psychologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burnout is a syndrome that has been characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment associated with chronic occupational stressors. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of burnout in healthcare professionals involved in primary burn care and to gain an understanding of the stressors and pleasures they experience. A cross-sectional survey was administered between February and March 2004 to healthcare professionals working in the burn unit (BU, study group) and critical care unit (CrCU, control group) of a teaching hospital. Three questionnaires were administered: a demographic data sheet, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and a questionnaire evaluating sources of stress, pleasures of work, and coping mechanisms used by staff. All 75 surveys distributed were completed (BU=36, CrCU=39). Respondents from the BU were nurses (66.7%), occupational or physical therapists (11.1%), physicians (8.3%), respiratory therapists (5.6%), social workers (2.8%), and others (5.6%). There were no significant differences between BU and CrCU professionals in years of experience on the unit (6.7 vs 8.0 years), years in the field (16.5 vs 14.7 years), weekly hours of patient care (35.1 vs 39.6 hours), and number of ventilated patients cared for per month (8.4 vs 19.3 patients). On the MBI, there were no significant differences between units with respect to the emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment subscales. However, staff in the BU reported lower rates of depersonalization (P=.049) compared with the CrCU counterparts. There was no significant difference in the perceived sources of workplaces stressors, but differences existed in the coping mechanisms. BU professionals exercised less (P=.007), talked less with their families (P=.006), ate less (P=.002), and watched less television (P=.002) compared with CrCU professionals as a means of coping with their workplace stress. In conclusion, although BU and CrCU have similar work environments, BU staff was significantly less depersonalized compared with CrCU staff. However, the two units had comparable rates of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. The mechanisms for coping with workplace stress differed significantly between the two units.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207