Examining Resident Burnout Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory: The Role of General Causality Orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Burnout continues to plague graduate medical education, and theory-informed approaches are lacking for effectively tackling this problem. Studies on personal factors that explain physician burnout have also neglected the role of self-determination. In self-determination theory, general causality orientations— autonomy , control , and impersonal —represent individual differences in self-determination that can be socialized and primed within environments, each relating to different motivation, behavior, and well-being outcomes. Objective To investigate how each general causality orientation relates to resident burnout, the hypothesis being that the autonomy orientation will negatively correlate, while the control and impersonal orientations will positively correlate. Methods Surveys containing demographic questions and 2 scales—the Causality Orientations at Work Scale and Oldenburg Burnout Inventory—were sent in 2023 to a sample of Canadian residents across 3 institutions. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were performed, controlling for significant demographic factors. Results A total of 243 of 1200 residents (20.5%) completed the survey. The 3 general causality orientations accounted for 31.5% of the variance in resident burnout, with autonomy correlating negatively ( B =-0.24; P <.001; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.11) and control ( B =0.20; P =.003; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.33) and impersonal ( B =0.28; P <.001; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.42) correlating positively. Conclusions Resident burnout is positively associated with the control and impersonal causality orientations, and negatively associated with the autonomy causality orientation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".