Stress Factors Associated With Burnout Among Attending Physicians: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burnout in attending physicians is a crucial issue that may negatively impact patient outcomes, as well as affect the quality of training provided to residents. To investigate the association between burnout and stress-coping ability, we conducted a cross-sectional study of attending physicians. METHODS: From April 2013 to March 2014, we distributed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire to 1,897 attending physicians who attended teaching-related training sessions and workshops. The questionnaire included the Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (MBI-GS, Japanese version) to evaluate burnout; the sense of coherence scale (SOC, Japanese version) to measure stress-coping ability, with higher scores indicating higher stress-coping ability; the Brief Scales for Job Stress (BSJS) to assess stress and buffering factors; demographic factors; mean weekly working hours; and factors related to instructing residents. The MBI-GS was used to determine the presence of physician burnout. Subjects were divided into tertiles based on SOC scores. We conducted logistic regression analysis of burnout using the following independent variables: physician experience, sex, mean weekly working hours, SOC group, mental workload, and reward from work. RESULTS: Of the 1,543 (81.3%) attending physicians who responded, 376 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 106 had missing data, thus 1,061 (55.9%) were analyzed. The prevalence of burnout was 17.2%. Physicians with burnout had significantly fewer years of experience as a doctor (P < 0.01), were more likely to be female (P < 0.01), worked more hours per week (P < 0.01), and had a lower SOC score (P < 0.01) than physicians without burnout. On the BSJS, the mean score of all stress factors was higher and that of buffering factors was lower in physicians with burnout (P < 0.01). The percentages of physicians with burnout were 35.7%, 12.8%, and 3.2% in the low, middle, and high SOC groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Using the high SOC group as a reference, the adjusted odds ratio for burnout in the low SOC group was 4.7 (95% confidence interval: 2.31 - 9.63) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, burnout among attending physicians was significantly associated with SOC scores after adjustment for stress factors and buffering factors.
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 | 0.035 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".