Veterinary team members experiencing high levels of burden transfer are more likely to report burnout and a less optimal psychosocial work environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe burden transfer in a sample of veterinary workers employed by a Canadian veterinary corporation and to examine the association between different levels of burden transfer and employee burnout and perceived psychosocial work environment. SAMPLE: 475 employees of small-animal veterinary hospitals owned by a corporate practice group. METHODS: Veterinary team members among 14 working groups responded to an online survey that included assessments of burden transfer, psychosocial environment, and burnout within the workplace. Participants were divided into groups on the basis of self-reported burden-transfer scores being low, mid, or high, and multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to ascertain associations between level of burden transfer, psychosocial environment, and burnout. RESULTS: On average, participants perceived difficult encounters with clients to occur with moderate frequency and reported reactions that were low-moderate in intensity. Individuals with high burden-transfer scores were identified in all working groups. Across the 3 burden-transfer groups, the key finding was that high-level burden transfer was associated with perception of greater emotional demands within the workplace, reduced support from supervisors, reduced feeling of social community in the workplace, and elevated rates of burnout among these participants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings highlight elevated risks for a certain population of veterinary employees experiencing high levels of burden transfer and underscore the potential need for targeted interventions to support these individuals. Employees who currently react to challenging client interactions with moderate or low intensity may also benefit from these programs as a preventative measure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".