Professional Well-Being of Practicing Physicians: The Roles of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the roles of basic psychological needs-autonomy, competence, and relatedness-in physicians' professional well-being, specifically satisfaction with professional life, work-related engagement, and exhaustion. Using an online survey, quantitative data were collected from 57 practicing physicians. Overall, 65% of the participants were female; 49% were family medicine (FM) physicians, with the rest of the participants practicing in various non-FM specialties (e.g., internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery); and 47% were in the early-career stage (≤10 years in practice). Multivariate regression analyses indicated that of the three psychological needs, the need for relatedness had the largest unique contributions to physicians' satisfaction with professional life, work-related engagement, and exhaustion, respectively. The unique contributions of the needs for autonomy and competence were relatively small. These findings extend basic psychological needs theory to the work domain of practicing physicians in an attempt to examine underpinnings of physicians' professional well-being, a critical component of quality patient care.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".