MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118844947 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200057

Burnout and distress among physicians in a cardiovascular centre of a quaternary hospital network: a cross-sectional survey

2021· article· en· W3118844947 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Barry B. Rubin, Rebecca Goldfarb, Daniel Satele, Leanna Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalGolder Associates (Canada)University Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutCross-sectional studyDistressMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Burnout and distress have a negative impact on physicians and the treatment they provide. Our aim was to measure the prevalence of burnout and distress among physicians in a cardiovascular centre of a quaternary hospital network in Canada, and compare these outcomes to those for physicians at academic health science centres (AHSCs) in the United States. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a survey of physicians practising in a cardiovascular centre at 2 quaternary referral hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, between Nov. 27, 2018, and Jan. 31, 2019. The survey tool included the Well-Being Index (WBI), which measures fatigue, depression, burnout, anxiety or stress, mental and physical quality of life, work–life integration, meaning in work and distress; a score of 3 or higher indicated high distress. We also evaluated physicians’ perception of the adequacy of staffing levels and of fair treatment in the workplace, and satisfaction with the electronic health record. We carried out standard univariate statistical comparisons using the χ<sup>2</sup>, Fisher exact or Kruskal–Wallis test as appropriate to perform univariate comparisons in the sample of respondents. We assessed the relation between a WBI score of 3 or higher and demographic characteristics. We compared univariate associations among WBI data for physicians at AHSCs in the US who completed the WBI to responses from our participants. <h3>Results:</h3> The response rate to the survey was 84.1% (127/151). Of the 127 respondents, 83 (65.4%) reported burnout in the previous month, and 68 (53.5%) reported emotional problems. Sixty-nine respondents (54.3%) had a WBI score of 3 or higher. Respondents were more likely to have a WBI score of 3 or higher versus a score less than 3 if they perceived insufficient staffing levels (52/69 [75%] v. 26/58 [45%], <i>p</i> = 0.02) or unfair treatment (23/69 [33%] v. 8/58 [14%], <i>p</i> = 0.03), or were anesthesiologists (26/35 [74%] v. 43/92 [47%] for other specialists, <i>p</i> = 0.005). Compared to 21 594 physicians in practice at AHSCs in the US, our respondents had a higher mean WBI score (2.4 v. 1.8, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and reported a higher prevalence of burnout (65.4% v. 56.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.048). <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Physicians in this study had high levels of burnout and distress, driven by the perception of inadequate staffing levels and being treated unfairly in the workplace. Addressing these institutional factors may improve physicians’ work experience and patient outcomes.

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)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207