Faculty Opinions recommendation of High level of burnout in intensivists: prevalence and associated factors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Professional burnout is a psychological syndrome arising in response to chronic interpersonal stressors on the job. There is the perception that intensivists are particularly exposed to stress because lives are literally in their hands.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and associated factors (patients or organization) of burnout among physicians working in intensive care units (ICUs) (including interns, residents, fellows, and attending physicians).METHODS: A 1-day national survey was conducted in adult ICUs in French public hospitals.MEASUREMENTS: The level of burnout was evaluated on the basis of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).MAIN RESULTS: A total of 189 ICUs participated and 978 surveys were returned (82.3% response rate). A high level of burnout was identified in 46.5% of the respondents. Ordinal logistic regression showed that female sex (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.30) was independently associated with a higher MBI score. Whereas no factor related to the severity of illness of patients was retained by the model, organizational factors were strongly associated with a higher MBI score. Workload (the number of night shifts per month, a long period of time from the last nonworking week, night shift the day before the survey) and impaired relationships (such as conflict with another colleague intensivist, and/or with a nurse) were the variables independently associated with a higher MBI score. In contrast, the quality of the relationships with chief nurses and nurses was associated with a lower MBI score.CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-half of the intensivists presented a high level of burnout. Organizational factors, but not factors related to the patients, appeared to be associated with burnout. PMID: 17234905
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.259 | 0.089 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".