Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To quantify how stress related to use of health information technology (HIT) predicts burnout among physicians. Methods: All 4197 practicing physicians in Rhode Island were surveyed in 2017 on their HIT use. Our main outcome was self-reported burnout. The presence of HIT-related stress was defined by report of at least 1 of the following: poor/marginal time for documentation, moderately high/excessive time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) at home, and agreement that using an EHR adds to daily frustration. We used logistic regression to assess the association between each HIT-related stress measure and burnout, adjusting for respondent demographics, practice characteristics, and the other stress measures. Results: Of the 1792 physician respondents (43% response rate), 26% reported burnout. Among EHR users (91%), 70% reported HIT-related stress, with the highest prevalence in primary care-oriented specialties. After adjustment, physicians reporting poor/marginal time for documentation had 2.8 times the odds of burnout (95% CI: 2.0-4.1; P < .0001), compared to those reporting sufficient time. Physicians reporting moderately high/excessive time on EHRs at home had 1.9 times the odds of burnout (95% CI: 1.4-2.8; P < .0001), compared to those with minimal/no EHR use at home. Those who agreed that EHRs add to their daily frustration had 2.4 times the odds of burnout (95% CI: 1.6-3.7; P < .0001), compared to those who disagreed. Conclusion: HIT-related stress is measurable, common (about 70% among respondents), specialty-related, and independently predictive of burnout symptoms. Identifying HIT-specific factors associated with burnout may guide healthcare organizations seeking to measure and remediate burnout among their physicians and staff.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it