MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231519645 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200058

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

2021· article· en· W4231519645 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
KeywordsBurnoutDistressAnxietyReferralCross-sectional studyMedicineUnivariateClinical psychologyUnivariate analysisPsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryMultivariate analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Burnout and distress have a negative impact on nurses and the treatment they provide. Our aim was to measure the prevalence of burnout and distress among nurses in a cardiovascular centre at 2 quaternary referral hospitals in Canada, and compare these outcomes to those for nurses at academic health science centres (AHSCs) in the United States. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a survey of nurses 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 2 or higher on the WBI indicated high distress. We also evaluated nurses’ 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 2 or higher and demographic characteristics. We compared univariate associations among WBI data for nurses at AHSCs in the US who completed the WBI to responses from our participants. <h3>Results:</h3> The response rate to the survey was 49.1% (242/493). Of the 242 respondents, 188 (77.7%) reported burnout in the previous month; 189 (78.1%) had a WBI score of 2 or higher, and 132 (54.5%) had a score of 4 or higher (indicative of severe distress). Ordinal multivariable analysis showed that lower WBI scores were associated with satisfaction with staffing levels (odds ratio [OR] 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.69) and the perception of fair treatment in the workplace (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74). Higher proportions of our respondents than nurses at AHSCs in the US reported burnout (77.7% v. 60.5%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and had a WBI score of 2 or higher (78.1% v. 57.0%) or 4 or higher (54.5% v. 32.0%) (both <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Although levels of burnout and distress were high among nurses, their perceptions of adequate staffing and fair treatment were associated with lower distress. Addressing inadequate staffing and unfair treatment may decrease burnout and other dimensions of distress among nurses, and improve their 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.413
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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