Burnout among Canadian oncologists and oncology residents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6549 Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate characteristics associated with burnout in Canadian oncologists and oncology resident physicians (ORP). Methods: Canadian medical oncologists (MO), radiation oncologists (RO) and ORP were asked to complete a self-administered survey which included: a validated single-item measure of burnout, questions regarding personal and professional characteristics, impact of work-related stress on family life and an exploration of the oncologists’ support network. A similar survey was sent to spouses to determine the spouse’s perception of oncologist burnout Results: A total of 307 oncologists and ORP completed the survey (median age 47, including 45% MO, 43% RO, 12% ORP). The response rate was 31%. The prevalence of high burnout in each group was: 20% MO, 14% RO, and 20% ORP. Overall, 61% MO and 37% RO reported a high work-overload, 25% MO and 22% RO had high work-family conflict, and 11% MO and 14% RO had family-work conflict. Regarding career satisfaction, 15% MO and 16% RO regreted their decision to become a physician, 23% MO and 29% RO considered leaving their current province, 17% MO and 20% RO considered leaving oncology as a career altogether. The concordance rate for burnout between physicians and spouses was 77.6% (kappa = 0.32). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with burnout included female gender, less exercise, less alcohol consumption and lower level of co-worker support. Factors included in the multi-variable analysis that were not associated with burnout include: age, number of cancer sites covered, spousal support, as well as time allocated to patient care and doing work tasks at home. Conclusions: Across Canada, one in five oncologists reported having high burnout. This is a lower rate than previously reported. Predictors of burnout in Canadian oncologists are different compared to a recently reported study of medical oncologists in the United States. Multivariable analysis predictors OR P-value Female 2.409 0.0277 Exercise (several times/ week min.) 0.324 0.0045 Alcohol (4 drinks/week versus less) 0.333 0.019 Coworker support (more versus less) 0.946 0.0305
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".