MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130096783 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044945

To burn-out or not to burn-out: a cross-sectional study in healthcare professionals in Spain during COVID-19 pandemic

2021· article· en· W3130096783 on OpenAlexaff
María Torrente, Pedro Sousa, A. Sánchez-Ramos, J. Pimentão, Ana Royuela, Fernando Franco, Ana Collazo-Lorduy, Ernestina Menasalvas, Mariano Provencio

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsHealth Research Foundation
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cross-sectional study2019-20 coronavirus outbreakHealth professionalsHealth careSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Family medicineMedical emergencyVirologyOutbreakDiseasePathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of burn-out syndrome in healthcare workers working on the front line (FL) in Spain during COVID-19. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online survey-based study. SETTINGS: Sampling was performed between 21st April and 3rd May 2020. The survey collected demographic data and questions regarding participants' working position since pandemic outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: Spanish healthcare workers working on the FL or usual ward were eligible. A total of 674 healthcare professionals answered the survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Burn-out syndrome was assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Medical Personnel. RESULTS: Of the 643 eligible responding participants, 408 (63.5%) were physicians, 172 (26.8%) were nurses and 63 (9.8%) other technical occupations. 377 (58.6%) worked on the FL. Most participants were women (472 (73.4%)), aged 31-40 years (163 (25.3%)) and worked in tertiary hospitals (>600 beds) (260 (40.4%)). Prevalence of burn-out syndrome was 43.4% (95% CI 39.5% to 47.2%), higher in COVID-19 FL workers (49.6%, p<0.001) than in non- COVID-19 FL workers (34.6%, p<0.001). Women felt more burn-out (60.8%, p=0.016), were more afraid of self-infection (61.9%, p=0.021) and of their performance and quality of care provided to the patients (75.8%, p=0.015) than men. More burn-out were those between 20 and 30 years old (65.2%, p=0.026) and those with more than 15 years of experience (53.7%, p=0.035).Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that, working on COVID-19 FL (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.71, p<0.001), being a woman (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29, p=0.022), being under 30 years old (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.89, p=0.028) and being a physician (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.41, p=0.011) were associated with high risk of burn-out syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: This survey study of healthcare professionals reported high rates of burn-out syndrome. Interventions to promote mental well-being in healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 need to be immediately implemented.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations132
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207