最佳实践:倦怠不仅仅是二进制。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
American Journal of Roentgenology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-17 DOI:10.2214/AJR.24.31111
Nitya L Thakore, Michael Lan, Abigail Ford Winkel, Dorice L Vieira, Stella K Kang
{"title":"最佳实践:倦怠不仅仅是二进制。","authors":"Nitya L Thakore, Michael Lan, Abigail Ford Winkel, Dorice L Vieira, Stella K Kang","doi":"10.2214/AJR.24.31111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Burnout among radiologists is increasingly prevalent, with the potential for having a substantial negative impact on physician well-being, delivery of care, and health outcomes. To evaluate this phenomenon using reliable and accurate means, validated quantitative instruments are essential. Variation in measurement can contribute to wide-ranging findings. This article evaluates radiologist burnout rates globally and dimensions of burnout as reported using different validated instruments; it also provides guidance on best practices to characterize burnout. Fifty-seven studies published between 1990 and 2023 were included in a systematic review, and 43 studies were included in a meta-analysis of burnout prevalence using random-effects models. The reported burnout prevalence ranged from 5% to 85%. With the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), burnout prevalence varied significantly depending on the instrument version used. Among MBI subcategories, the pooled prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 54% (95% CI, 45-63%), depersonalization was 52% (95% CI, 41-63%), and low personal accomplishment was 36% (95% CI, 27-47%). Other validated burnout instruments showed less heterogeneous results; studies using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index yielded a burnout prevalence of 39% (95% CI, 34-45%), whereas the validated single-item instrument yielded a burnout prevalence of 34% (95% CI, 29-39%). Standardized instruments for assessing prevalence alongside multidimensional profiles capturing experiences may better characterize radiologist burnout, including change occurring over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":55529,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Roentgenology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best Practices: Burnout Is More Than Binary.\",\"authors\":\"Nitya L Thakore, Michael Lan, Abigail Ford Winkel, Dorice L Vieira, Stella K Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.2214/AJR.24.31111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Burnout among radiologists is increasingly prevalent, with the potential for having a substantial negative impact on physician well-being, delivery of care, and health outcomes. To evaluate this phenomenon using reliable and accurate means, validated quantitative instruments are essential. Variation in measurement can contribute to wide-ranging findings. This article evaluates radiologist burnout rates globally and dimensions of burnout as reported using different validated instruments; it also provides guidance on best practices to characterize burnout. Fifty-seven studies published between 1990 and 2023 were included in a systematic review, and 43 studies were included in a meta-analysis of burnout prevalence using random-effects models. The reported burnout prevalence ranged from 5% to 85%. With the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), burnout prevalence varied significantly depending on the instrument version used. Among MBI subcategories, the pooled prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 54% (95% CI, 45-63%), depersonalization was 52% (95% CI, 41-63%), and low personal accomplishment was 36% (95% CI, 27-47%). Other validated burnout instruments showed less heterogeneous results; studies using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index yielded a burnout prevalence of 39% (95% CI, 34-45%), whereas the validated single-item instrument yielded a burnout prevalence of 34% (95% CI, 29-39%). Standardized instruments for assessing prevalence alongside multidimensional profiles capturing experiences may better characterize radiologist burnout, including change occurring over time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Roentgenology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Roentgenology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.24.31111\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Roentgenology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.24.31111","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

放射科医生的职业倦怠现象越来越普遍,可能会对医生的健康、医疗服务和健康结果产生巨大的负面影响。要使用可靠、准确的方法评估这一现象,必须使用经过验证的定量工具。测量方法的不同会导致不同的结果。本文评估了全球放射科医师的职业倦怠率以及使用不同验证工具报告的职业倦怠维度,并为描述职业倦怠的最佳实践提供指导。1990年至2023年间的57项研究被纳入系统综述,43项研究被纳入使用随机效应模型对倦怠发生率进行的荟萃分析。报告的倦怠率从 5% 到 85% 不等。在马斯拉赫倦怠量表(MBI)中,倦怠发生率因量表版本的不同而有显著差异。在 MBI 的子类别中,情感衰竭的发生率为 54%(95% CI,45-63%),人格解体的发生率为 52%(95% CI,41-63%),个人成就感低的发生率为 36%(95% CI,27-47%)。其他经过验证的职业倦怠工具显示的结果差异较小;使用斯坦福职业满足感指数(Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index)的研究得出的职业倦怠流行率为 39%(95% CI,34-45%),而经过验证的单项工具得出的流行率为 34%(95% CI,29-39%)。标准化的倦怠感测评工具和多维度的体验特征描述可以更好地描述放射科医师的倦怠感,包括随时间推移而发生的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Best Practices: Burnout Is More Than Binary.

Burnout among radiologists is increasingly prevalent, with the potential for having a substantial negative impact on physician well-being, delivery of care, and health outcomes. To evaluate this phenomenon using reliable and accurate means, validated quantitative instruments are essential. Variation in measurement can contribute to wide-ranging findings. This article evaluates radiologist burnout rates globally and dimensions of burnout as reported using different validated instruments; it also provides guidance on best practices to characterize burnout. Fifty-seven studies published between 1990 and 2023 were included in a systematic review, and 43 studies were included in a meta-analysis of burnout prevalence using random-effects models. The reported burnout prevalence ranged from 5% to 85%. With the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), burnout prevalence varied significantly depending on the instrument version used. Among MBI subcategories, the pooled prevalence of emotional exhaustion was 54% (95% CI, 45-63%), depersonalization was 52% (95% CI, 41-63%), and low personal accomplishment was 36% (95% CI, 27-47%). Other validated burnout instruments showed less heterogeneous results; studies using the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index yielded a burnout prevalence of 39% (95% CI, 34-45%), whereas the validated single-item instrument yielded a burnout prevalence of 34% (95% CI, 29-39%). Standardized instruments for assessing prevalence alongside multidimensional profiles capturing experiences may better characterize radiologist burnout, including change occurring over time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
920
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1907, the monthly American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) is the world’s longest continuously published general radiology journal. AJR is recognized as among the specialty’s leading peer-reviewed journals and has a worldwide circulation of close to 25,000. The journal publishes clinically-oriented articles across all radiology subspecialties, seeking relevance to radiologists’ daily practice. The journal publishes hundreds of articles annually with a diverse range of formats, including original research, reviews, clinical perspectives, editorials, and other short reports. The journal engages its audience through a spectrum of social media and digital communication activities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信