Burnout among faculty physicians in an academic health science centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burnout experienced by physicians is concerning because it may affect quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of burnout among physicians at an academic health science centre and to test the hypothesis that work hours are related to burnout. METHODS: All 300 staff physicians, contacted through their personal e-mail, were provided an encrypted link to an anonymous questionnaire. The primary outcome measure, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, has three subscales: personal, work related and patient related. RESULTS: The response rate for the questionnaire was 70%. Quantitative demands, insecurity at work and job satisfaction affected all three components of burnout. Of 210 staff physicians, 22% (n=46) had scores indicating personal burnout, 14% (n=30) had scores indicating work-related burnout and 8% (n=16) had scores indicating patient-related burnout. The correlation between total hours worked and total burnout was only 0.10 (P=0.14) DISCUSSION: Up to 22% of academic paediatric physicians had scores consistent with mild to severe burnout. A simple reduction in work hours is unlikely to be successful in reducing burnout and, therefore, quantitative demands, job satisfaction and work insecurity may require attention to address burnout among academic physicians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".