A study of resident duty hours and burnout in a sample of Saudi residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work hour restrictions in residency programs have been implemented over the last several decades in Europe, USA, and Canada. To best of our knowledge, there is no study of resident duty hours in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In addition, few studies have looked at the prevalence of burnout amongst Saudi residents. The present study explored resident duty hours and burnout amongst residents in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A paper-based questionnaire was designed to survey resident duty hours in Saudi Arabia and was administered along with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. The questionnaires were administered to residents in medical and surgical residency programs at King Abdulaziz Medical City-Riyadh and two hospitals in Buraidah, Qassim Province. RESULTS: A total of 181 residents from the three hospitals participated in the survey. In terms of average number of work hours per week, 50% of all residents reported working 60-79 h while 30% reported working 80 or more hours per week. The prevalence of burnout was 81%. There was no association between higher number of working hours and the prevalence of burnout. CONCLUSION: This was the first study describing resident duty hours and exploring the relationship between duty hours and burnout in Saudi Arabia. Our main findings were that the majority of residents work 60 or more hours per week, and there was a very high degree of burnout amongst residents. A larger multi-centre study of resident duty hours and its effect on patient safety and resident well-being is needed to develop work hour regulations in Saudi Arabia. In addition, there is an urgent need to develop programs that address resident burnout.
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".