Assessment of Burnout Among Canadian Pharmacists Working in Team-based Primary Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burnout syndrome is well-documented among healthcare professionals across various practice settings. There has been recent expansion of Canadian pharmacists into team-based primary care and burnout in this setting has not been assessed. Our objective was to assess workplace burnout and to identify factors that play a role in perpetuating or diminishing it. METHOD: An online survey to assess burnout was developed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) tool and questions regarding pharmacist background and practice. Invitations to complete the survey were sent to Canadian pharmacists working in team-based primary care settings on November 26, 2019 via a national primary healthcare listserv. RESULTS: A total of 31/433 completed responses were collected. The main analysis focused on the personal accomplishment (PA) domain as it had an adequate response rate. The PA domain had a median score of 5.0 (95% CI 4.69-5.22). We compared medians of the PA domain across different groups of each categorical variable. We found that the number of years working in primary care settings was positively associated with a higher PA domain score (p= 0.029). DISCUSSION: PA was higher in pharmacists who have been practicing in a primary care setting for longer; however, burnout rates could not be properly assessed due to the limited response rate. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess burnout among Canadian team-based primary care pharmacists. Personal accomplishment was higher in those who have been practicing in a primary care setting for longer. Future studies should consider alternate methods to evaluate burnout in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".