Wearable Technologies for Detecting Burnout and Well-Being in Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The occupational burnout epidemic is a growing issue, and in the United States, up to 60% of medical students, residents, physicians, and registered nurses experience symptoms. Wearable technologies may provide an opportunity to predict the onset of burnout and other forms of distress using physiological markers. OBJECTIVE This study aims to identify physiological biomarkers of burnout, and establish what gaps are currently present in the use of wearable technologies for burnout prediction among health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS A comprehensive search of several databases was performed on June 7, 2022. No date limits were set for the search. The databases were Ovid: MEDLINE(R), Embase, Healthstar, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection via Clarivate Analytics, Scopus via Elsevier, EBSCOhost: Academic Search Premier, CINAHL with Full Text, and Business Source Premier. Studies observing anxiety, burnout, stress, and depression using a wearable device worn by an HCP were included, with HCP defined as medical students, residents, physicians, and nurses. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. RESULTS The initial search yielded 505 papers, from which 10 (1.95%) studies were included in this review. The majority (n=9) used wrist-worn biosensors and described observational cohort studies (n=8), with a low risk of bias. While no physiological measures were reliably associated with burnout or anxiety, step count and time in bed were associated with depressive symptoms, and heart rate and heart rate variability were associated with acute stress. Studies were limited with long-term observations (eg, ≥12 months) and large sample sizes, with limited integration of wearable data with system-level information (eg, acuity) to predict burnout. Reporting standards were also insufficient, particularly in device adherence and sampling frequency used for physiological measurements. CONCLUSIONS With wearables offering promise for digital health assessments of human functioning, it is possible to see wearables as a frontier for predicting burnout. Future digital health studies exploring the utility of wearable technologies for burnout prediction should address the limitations of data standardization and strategies to improve adherence and inclusivity in study participation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".