MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405970325 · doi:10.1002/jhm.13577

Prevalence of burnout and impact of workload on physician wellness: A cross‐sectional survey of hospitalists in British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4405970325 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vandad Yousefi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
FundersDoctors of BC
KeywordsBurnoutWorkloadMedicineCross-sectional studyWorkforcePandemicFamily medicineHospital medicineJob satisfactionHealth careWorkforce planningNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Acute careDiseaseClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists in British Columbia care for a large percentage of hospitalized patients across 21 acute care facilities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the demographic and work attributes of the workforce and to understand levels of burnout and the relationship between workload and job satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of individuals participating in hospitalist programs in BC. RESULTS: Almost all individuals (96%) were involved in the care of patients with COVID-19 in 2021, the height of the pandemic. High rates of burnout were demonstrated among hospitalists, with a large number of providers planning to significantly reduce or stop their involvement in acute care. Regression analysis identified workload as an important factor associated with burnout. Older physicians, those who had been practising for longer, and those with moderate to high number of shifts were more likely to consider reducing their involvement with their programs. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of burnout are associated with a desire to reduce work involvement among BC hospitalists. Health system leaders need to consider factors contributing to burnout as a key aspect of broader health human resource planning efforts.

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)0.002
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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital MedicineSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207