MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3068106032 · doi:10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.07.001

The role of alexithymia and empathy on radiation therapists’ professional quality of life

2020· article· en· W3068106032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierfrancesco Franco, Valentina Tesio, Jenny Bertholet, Anne Gasnier, E. González Del Portillo, Mateusz Spałek, Jean‐Emmanuel Bibault, Gerben R. Borst, Wouter van Elmpt, Daniela Thorwarth, L. Mullaney, Kathrine Røe Redalen, Ludwig Dubois, Cyrus Chargari, Sophie Perryck, Jolien Heukelom, Steven Petit, M. Lybeer, Lorys Castelli

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaEmpathyBurnoutToronto Alexithymia ScaleClinical psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyCompassion fatigueInterpersonal Reactivity IndexAffect (linguistics)MedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapistPerspective-taking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purposePhysical and mental well-being are crucial for oncology professionals as they affect performance at work. Personality traits, as alexithymia and empathy, may influence professional quality of life. Alexithymia involves diminished skills in emotion processing and awareness. Empathy is pertinent to the ability to understand another’s ‘state of mind/emotion’. The PROject on Burn-Out in RadiatioN Oncology (PRO BONO) investigates professional quality of life amongst radiation oncology professionals, exploring the role of alexithymia and empathy. The present study reports on data pertinent to radiation therapists (RTTs).Material and methodsAn online survey targeted ESTRO members. Participants were asked to fill out 3 questionnaires for alexithymia, empathy and professional quality of life: (a) Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); (b) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI); (c) Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQoL). The present analysis focuses on RTTS to evaluate compassion satisfaction (CS), secondary traumatic stress (STS) and Burnout and their correlation with alexithymia and empathy, using generalized linear modeling. Covariates found significant at univariate linear regression analysis were included in the multivariate linear regression model.ResultsA total of 399 RTTs completed all questionnaires. The final model for the burnout scale of ProQoL found, as significal predictors, the TAS-20 total score (β = 0.46, p < 0 0.001), and the individual’s perception of being valued by supervisor (β = −0.29, p < 0.001). With respect to CS, the final model included TAS-20 total score (β = −0.33, p < 0.001), the Empatic Concern domain (β = 0.23, p < 0.001) of the IRI questionnaire and the individual’s perception of being valued by colleagues (β = 0.22, p < 0.001).ConclusionsAlexithymia increased the likelyhood to experience burnout and negatively affected the professional quality of life amongst RTTs working in oncology. Empathy resulted in higher professional fulfillment together with collegaues’ appreciation. These results may be used to benchmark preventing strategies and implement organization-direct and/or individual-directed interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation OncologySame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207