MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150229188 · doi:10.1097/pec.0000000000002425

Burnout in Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physicians

2021· article· en· W3150229188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutPediatric emergency medicineEmergency departmentMEDLINEIntensive careEl Niño

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the prevalence of and identify predictors associated with burnout in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians and to construct a predictive model for burnout in this population to stratify risk. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey study among a random sample of board-certified or board-eligible PEM physicians throughout the United States and Canada. Our primary outcome was burnout assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory on 3 subscales: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. We defined burnout as scoring in the high-degree range on any 1 of the 3 subscales. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was followed by questions on personal demographics and work environment. We compared PEM physicians with and without burnout using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We studied a total of 416 PEM board-certified/eligible physicians (61.3% women; mean age, 45.3 ± 8.8 years). Surveys were initiated by 445 of 749 survey recipients (59.4% response rate). Burnout prevalence measured 49.5% (206/416) in the study cohort, with 34.9% (145/416) of participants scoring in the high-degree range for emotional exhaustion, 33.9% (141/416) for depersonalization, and 20% (83/416) for personal accomplishment. A multivariable model identified 6 independent predictors associated with burnout: 1) lack of appreciation from patients, 2) lack of appreciation from supervisors, 3) perception of an unfair clinical work schedule, 4) dissatisfaction with promotion opportunities, 5) feeling that the electronic medical record detracts from patient care, and 6) working in a nonacademic setting (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77). A predictive model demonstrated that physicians with 5 or 6 predictors had an 81% probability of having burnout, whereas those with zero predictors had a 28% probability of burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent in PEM physicians. We identified 6 independent predictors for burnout and constructed a scoring system that stratifies probability of burnout. This predictive model may be used to guide organizational strategies that mitigate burnout and improve physician well-being.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.372 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Emergency CareSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207