The relationship between general practitioner movement behaviours with burnout and fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is associated with feelings of burnout and fatigue, which in turn are associated with reduced performance among healthcare practitioners. This study explored movement behaviours of general practitioners (GPs) and the association between these behaviours with burnout and fatigue. METHODS: GPs in Northern Ireland were asked to wear a thigh-worn accelerometer for seven days and complete validated questionnaires to assess the association between daily number of steps, time spent sitting and standing with feelings of burnout and fatigue. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data were obtained from 47 (77.0%) participants. Average workday sitting time, standing time and number of steps were 10.6 h (SD 1.5), 3.8 h (SD 1.3), and 7796 steps (SD 3116) respectively. Participants were less sedentary (8.0 h (SD 1.6)) and more active (4.7 h (SD 1.4) standing time and 12,408 steps (SD 4496)) on non-workdays. Fourteen (30.4%) participants reported burnout and sixteen (34.8%) reported severe fatigue. There were no significant associations between sitting, standing and step counts with burnout or fatigue (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: GPs were less active on workdays compared to non-workdays and exhibited high levels of sitting. Feelings of burnout and fatigue were highly prevalent, however movement behaviours were not found to be associated with burnout and fatigue. Given the increased sedentariness among GPs on workdays compared to non-workdays, GPs should consider how they can improve their movement behaviours on workdays to help optimise their wellbeing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".