血液学专业人员的职业倦怠症状:EHA调查。

IF 14.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
HemaSphere Pub Date : 2025-09-23 DOI:10.1002/hem3.70226
Côme Bommier, Adela Perolla, Ana Zelić Kerep, Ruxandra Irimia, Nikolia Iatrou, Elizabeth Macintyre, Nuno Borges, EHA Burnout Survey Initiative
{"title":"血液学专业人员的职业倦怠症状:EHA调查。","authors":"Côme Bommier,&nbsp;Adela Perolla,&nbsp;Ana Zelić Kerep,&nbsp;Ruxandra Irimia,&nbsp;Nikolia Iatrou,&nbsp;Elizabeth Macintyre,&nbsp;Nuno Borges,&nbsp;EHA Burnout Survey Initiative","doi":"10.1002/hem3.70226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Burnout, a work-related syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, has reached epidemic levels in medicine, posing significant threats to healthcare providers, patients, and systems.<span><sup>1-3</sup></span> Associated with reduced empathy, impaired judgment, and compromised patient safety,<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> burnout is generally driven by excessive workload, inefficient processes, administrative burden, and work–home conflict, alongside personal factors like neglect of self-care.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> Younger and female physicians report higher burnout rates, with women experiencing more emotional exhaustion and men greater depersonalization.<span><sup>8</sup></span> In high-stress specialties like oncology, nearly 45% of US oncologists report burnout, with long clinical hours and caseloads as dominant predictors.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Hematology professionals face similar pressures, managing life-threatening diseases while balancing clinical and research roles.<span><sup>9</sup></span> However, dedicated studies on burnout in hematologists remain scarce.<span><sup>10</sup></span> To address this gap, the European Hematology Association (EHA) launched the Burnout Survey Initiative in 2024, with the goal of assessing and characterizing the prevalence and key drivers of burnout within the hematology community. Using a validated instrument, the survey sought to quantify the burden of burnout in this population and to explore both personal and work-related factors associated with its occurrence. Ultimately, our aim was to generate hematology-specific insights that could inform targeted well-being interventions for professionals in the field.</p><p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EHA members between September and October 2024, targeting hematology professionals worldwide, including clinical hematologists, laboratory hematologists, researchers, and trainees. The survey, disseminated by the EHA Membership Matters Center via email to 7890 members, was anonymous and voluntary, with 14,065 email communications sent, including reminders, to improve response rates. The questionnaire, accessible online from September 10 to October 31, 2024, collected no personally identifiable information, ensuring confidentiality. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), a validated tool measuring emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Burnout was defined as emotional exhaustion ≥27 and/or depersonalization ≥10; low personal accomplishment when &lt;34.<span><sup>1, 11</sup></span> The survey included MBI-GS items, demographics (age, gender, and country), and professional characteristics (role, experience, workload, and patient contact). Participants with incomplete MBI-GS or demographic data were excluded. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and burnout prevalence. Univariate associations used chi-square, Fisher's exact, <i>t</i>-tests, or Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> tests. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of burnout and low personal accomplishment, using a stepwise approach, finally adjusting for age, gender, profession, academic level, working hours, and patient contact. Challenges impacting well-being were analyzed in a separate model. Country-level variations were explored for countries with ≥10 respondents, with a subgroup analysis for those ≤34 years. All analyses used R version 4.3, with P &lt; 0.05 considered significant.</p><p>Of 1843 respondents, 62% were female, and most were aged 25–54 years, with 32% aged 35–44. Participants worked in university hospitals (57%) or general hospitals (19%), spanning 43 countries, primarily Italy (13%), Spain (10%), the United Kingdom (8.8%), Germany (7.4%), and France (6.9%). Clinical hematologists comprised 67%, followed by researchers (9.4%) and biomedical scientists (4.6%). Nearly half had &gt;15 years' experience (41%), and 20% had no academic affiliation. Most participants were involved in direct patient care on a daily basis (58%), while 18% indicated that they did not see patients at all. Daytime shift-work was the predominant work schedule (91%); however, substantial proportions also worked evenings (19%), nights (23%), weekends (40%), or participated in regular on-call duties (31%). Regarding workload, over 80% worked ≥40 h/week (35% 40–49 h, 33% 50–59 h, and 18% ≥60 h).</p><p>Burnout was present in 50% of respondents (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization). Mean emotional exhaustion was 24 (SD 14), with 42% scoring ≥27; 43% felt “worn out” several times weekly, and 27% reported feeling emotionally exhausted several times a week or daily. Mean depersonalization was 8 (SD 7), with 34% scoring ≥10; 18% felt “emotionally harder” frequently, and 16% reported increased callousness. Notably, among 29 countries/regions with at least 10 respondents, burnout prevalence showed marked variability (Figure 1). The lowest rates were observed in the Netherlands (23%) and in Denmark (24%), whereas the highest were reported in Bulgaria (82%), Cyprus (70%), Portugal (67%), Ireland (65%), and Greece (63%). Among young professionals (≤34 years), rates of severe burnout were particularly elevated in the Czech Republic (82%) and Greece (81%). Notably, burnout rates among young professionals were considerably higher than the national averages observed in the full sample, even in countries known to have less burnout (e.g., the Netherlands: 62% among young vs. 23% overall). Low personal accomplishment (score &lt; 34) affected 66%, with a mean personal accomplishment score of 28 (SD 10). However, 44% reported positively influencing others weekly, and 36% felt energetic weekly. Low personal accomplishment was prevalent, affecting &gt;90% of young respondents in Greece and &gt;75% in Portugal, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom.</p><p>Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of burnout (Figure 2): female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.36; 95% CI [1.05–1.76]), working 40–59 h/week (aOR 1.84; 95% CI [1.24–2.75]), ≥60 h/week (aOR 2.95; 95% CI [1.84–4.77]), and daily patient contact (1.77 [1.33–2.36]). Younger age increased risk (aOR 0.35; 95% CI [0.23–0.52] for ≥55 years vs. &lt;35 years), whereas senior academic positions were protective (aOR 0.62; 95% CI [0.41–0.93]). Among laboratory professions, burnout was higher in biomedical scientists (50%) and biologists (46%) than lab permanent staff (25.6%). Key challenges associated with burnout included lack of control and autonomy (aOR 2.52; 95% CI [1.81–3.53]), lack of support (aOR 2.36; 95% CI [1.77–3.17]), poor management (aOR 1.73; 95% CI [1.29–2.32]), work–life imbalance (aOR 1.97; 95% CI [1.46–2.67]), emotional demands (aOR 1.61; 95% CI [1.16–2.22]), inadequate staffing (aOR 1.62; 95% CI [1.22–2.15]), high patient volume (aOR 1.54; 95% CI [1.12–2.12]), and intense workloads (aOR 1.51; 95% CI [1.09–2.09]). A post hoc analysis comparing low-burnout countries (Denmark, the Netherlands) to high-burnout ones (Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Greece) showed higher workloads (50.9% vs. 25.0%), understaffing (57.7% vs. 26.3%), and lack of support (46.4% vs. 18.4%) in the latter. Low personal accomplishment predictors included female gender (aOR 1.48; 95% CI [1.14–1.92]), younger age (aOR 0.32; 95% CI [0.21–0.49] for ≥55 years), and lack of senior academic position (aOR 0.59; 95% CI [0.39–0.90]). Unlike burnout, daily patient contact showed no association (aOR 0.98; 95% CI [0.73–1.31]) with low personal accomplishment, but laboratory hematologists had higher odds (aOR 1.87; 95% CI [1.04–3.52]).</p><p>This study, the first large-scale evaluation of burnout among European hematology professionals, reveals a high prevalence, with 50% experiencing burnout and 66% low personal accomplishment, aligning with oncology findings.<span><sup>1, 12</sup></span> Younger professionals, women, and those with daily patient contact or long hours were most affected, whereas senior academic roles were protective.</p><p>A key contribution of this study is the distinction between predictors of burnout and low personal accomplishment, underscoring the multifaceted nature of professional distress. While certain factors such as female gender, younger age, and junior academic status were associated with both outcomes, others were outcome-specific. Daily patient contact, for instance, was a strong predictor of burnout but showed no relationship with low personal accomplishment, suggesting that the emotionally taxing nature of clinical care may be offset by a sense of professional fulfillment due to recognition (by patients and families). Conversely, laboratory hematologists had higher odds of low personal accomplishment, potentially reflecting reduced patient interaction, limited recognition, or fewer opportunities for professional growth. Although this category is mixed, the rate of low personal accomplishment did not differ across laboratory-related professions.</p><p>Evidently, early-career hematologists face workload imbalance, uncertainty, and insufficient structural support, compounding emotional strain. On top of that, women (62% of respondents) may encounter disproportionate patient communication demands, domestic responsibilities, and workplace inequities like discrimination or limited leadership opportunities.<span><sup>8</sup></span> Fortunately, there are multiple ways to overcome these difficulties. Mentorship programs can support younger professionals by fostering career guidance and resilience, while peer support networks and recognition programs can mitigate isolation for laboratory hematologists. For women, schedule flexibility, equitable leadership pathways, and initiatives to address bias are critical to reducing burnout and enhancing fulfillment.</p><p>Beyond tailored interventions, exhaustion and professional satisfaction may only be resolved when systemic factors are efficiently addressed. In our study, lack of control, lack of support, and effective management were the strongest burnout drivers, echoing US studies framing burnout as a structural issue.<span><sup>13-15</sup></span> Systemic reforms, including optimized staffing, supportive leadership, and mentorship, are critical to enhance psychological safety.<span><sup>13</sup></span></p><p>Our study has several strengths, including a large, diverse sample of hematology professionals, use of a validated burnout measure (MBI-GS), and the inclusion of multilevel analyses. Nonetheless, limitations include a limited number of observed characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, sexuality, and disability were not described) and the possibility of response bias, particularly if individuals experiencing higher distress were more likely to respond. Last but not least, our cross-sectional design lacks longitudinal insight. The question of how burnout trajectories evolve over a career is critical. The observed protective effect of older age and senior academic roles might reflect either a selection effect—where those most affected by burnout leave clinical roles—or a natural adaptation to workplace demands over time. However, as West et al. emphasize, resilience levels among physicians are generally high, even in those experiencing burnout.<span><sup>15</sup></span> This suggests that while personal coping mechanisms may improve over time, structural workplace factors remain the primary contributors to burnout.</p><p>In conclusion, this first large-scale European study demonstrates that burnout in hematology is common and driven by modifiable systemic factors, not individual failings. The systemic nature of burnout is evident. Therefore, professional societies and healthcare systems must prioritize safer work frameworks, with effective limits on working hours, and develop tailored interventions for younger professionals and women. We urge a shift from expecting clinicians to “cope better” to implementing organizational reforms, ensuring high-quality care for patients with hematologic diseases.</p><p><b>Côme Bommier</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; software; data curation; formal analysis; visualization; investigation; validation; writing—review and editing; writing—original draft. <b>Adela Perolla</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing. <b>Ana Zelić Kerep</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing. <b>Ruxandra Irimia</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing; project administration. <b>Nikolia Iatrou</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; project administration; funding acquisition; resources. <b>Elizabeth Macintyre</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing; supervision. <b>Nuno Borges</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>The study was reviewed under EHA Membership Matters' internal research governance procedures, which are designed to assess ethical risks in line with professional research standards. This protocol was categorized as exempt from full ethical review for the following reasons: participation was entirely voluntary, no personally identifiable information was collected, and the design posed minimal risk and involved no intervention. Membership Matters' practitioners are all members of the Market Research Society (MRS) and conduct research in full compliance with stringent professional codes of conduct—particularly around participant confidentiality, informed consent, and data protection.</p><p>The survey was entirely sponsored by the European Hematology Association (EHA). EHA Engagement department also covered the APCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12982,"journal":{"name":"HemaSphere","volume":"9 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12456095/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Burnout symptoms among hematology professionals: An EHA survey\",\"authors\":\"Côme Bommier,&nbsp;Adela Perolla,&nbsp;Ana Zelić Kerep,&nbsp;Ruxandra Irimia,&nbsp;Nikolia Iatrou,&nbsp;Elizabeth Macintyre,&nbsp;Nuno Borges,&nbsp;EHA Burnout Survey Initiative\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hem3.70226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Burnout, a work-related syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, has reached epidemic levels in medicine, posing significant threats to healthcare providers, patients, and systems.<span><sup>1-3</sup></span> Associated with reduced empathy, impaired judgment, and compromised patient safety,<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> burnout is generally driven by excessive workload, inefficient processes, administrative burden, and work–home conflict, alongside personal factors like neglect of self-care.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> Younger and female physicians report higher burnout rates, with women experiencing more emotional exhaustion and men greater depersonalization.<span><sup>8</sup></span> In high-stress specialties like oncology, nearly 45% of US oncologists report burnout, with long clinical hours and caseloads as dominant predictors.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Hematology professionals face similar pressures, managing life-threatening diseases while balancing clinical and research roles.<span><sup>9</sup></span> However, dedicated studies on burnout in hematologists remain scarce.<span><sup>10</sup></span> To address this gap, the European Hematology Association (EHA) launched the Burnout Survey Initiative in 2024, with the goal of assessing and characterizing the prevalence and key drivers of burnout within the hematology community. Using a validated instrument, the survey sought to quantify the burden of burnout in this population and to explore both personal and work-related factors associated with its occurrence. Ultimately, our aim was to generate hematology-specific insights that could inform targeted well-being interventions for professionals in the field.</p><p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EHA members between September and October 2024, targeting hematology professionals worldwide, including clinical hematologists, laboratory hematologists, researchers, and trainees. The survey, disseminated by the EHA Membership Matters Center via email to 7890 members, was anonymous and voluntary, with 14,065 email communications sent, including reminders, to improve response rates. The questionnaire, accessible online from September 10 to October 31, 2024, collected no personally identifiable information, ensuring confidentiality. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), a validated tool measuring emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Burnout was defined as emotional exhaustion ≥27 and/or depersonalization ≥10; low personal accomplishment when &lt;34.<span><sup>1, 11</sup></span> The survey included MBI-GS items, demographics (age, gender, and country), and professional characteristics (role, experience, workload, and patient contact). Participants with incomplete MBI-GS or demographic data were excluded. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and burnout prevalence. Univariate associations used chi-square, Fisher's exact, <i>t</i>-tests, or Mann–Whitney <i>U</i> tests. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of burnout and low personal accomplishment, using a stepwise approach, finally adjusting for age, gender, profession, academic level, working hours, and patient contact. Challenges impacting well-being were analyzed in a separate model. Country-level variations were explored for countries with ≥10 respondents, with a subgroup analysis for those ≤34 years. All analyses used R version 4.3, with P &lt; 0.05 considered significant.</p><p>Of 1843 respondents, 62% were female, and most were aged 25–54 years, with 32% aged 35–44. Participants worked in university hospitals (57%) or general hospitals (19%), spanning 43 countries, primarily Italy (13%), Spain (10%), the United Kingdom (8.8%), Germany (7.4%), and France (6.9%). Clinical hematologists comprised 67%, followed by researchers (9.4%) and biomedical scientists (4.6%). Nearly half had &gt;15 years' experience (41%), and 20% had no academic affiliation. Most participants were involved in direct patient care on a daily basis (58%), while 18% indicated that they did not see patients at all. Daytime shift-work was the predominant work schedule (91%); however, substantial proportions also worked evenings (19%), nights (23%), weekends (40%), or participated in regular on-call duties (31%). Regarding workload, over 80% worked ≥40 h/week (35% 40–49 h, 33% 50–59 h, and 18% ≥60 h).</p><p>Burnout was present in 50% of respondents (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization). Mean emotional exhaustion was 24 (SD 14), with 42% scoring ≥27; 43% felt “worn out” several times weekly, and 27% reported feeling emotionally exhausted several times a week or daily. Mean depersonalization was 8 (SD 7), with 34% scoring ≥10; 18% felt “emotionally harder” frequently, and 16% reported increased callousness. Notably, among 29 countries/regions with at least 10 respondents, burnout prevalence showed marked variability (Figure 1). The lowest rates were observed in the Netherlands (23%) and in Denmark (24%), whereas the highest were reported in Bulgaria (82%), Cyprus (70%), Portugal (67%), Ireland (65%), and Greece (63%). Among young professionals (≤34 years), rates of severe burnout were particularly elevated in the Czech Republic (82%) and Greece (81%). Notably, burnout rates among young professionals were considerably higher than the national averages observed in the full sample, even in countries known to have less burnout (e.g., the Netherlands: 62% among young vs. 23% overall). Low personal accomplishment (score &lt; 34) affected 66%, with a mean personal accomplishment score of 28 (SD 10). However, 44% reported positively influencing others weekly, and 36% felt energetic weekly. Low personal accomplishment was prevalent, affecting &gt;90% of young respondents in Greece and &gt;75% in Portugal, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom.</p><p>Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of burnout (Figure 2): female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.36; 95% CI [1.05–1.76]), working 40–59 h/week (aOR 1.84; 95% CI [1.24–2.75]), ≥60 h/week (aOR 2.95; 95% CI [1.84–4.77]), and daily patient contact (1.77 [1.33–2.36]). Younger age increased risk (aOR 0.35; 95% CI [0.23–0.52] for ≥55 years vs. &lt;35 years), whereas senior academic positions were protective (aOR 0.62; 95% CI [0.41–0.93]). Among laboratory professions, burnout was higher in biomedical scientists (50%) and biologists (46%) than lab permanent staff (25.6%). Key challenges associated with burnout included lack of control and autonomy (aOR 2.52; 95% CI [1.81–3.53]), lack of support (aOR 2.36; 95% CI [1.77–3.17]), poor management (aOR 1.73; 95% CI [1.29–2.32]), work–life imbalance (aOR 1.97; 95% CI [1.46–2.67]), emotional demands (aOR 1.61; 95% CI [1.16–2.22]), inadequate staffing (aOR 1.62; 95% CI [1.22–2.15]), high patient volume (aOR 1.54; 95% CI [1.12–2.12]), and intense workloads (aOR 1.51; 95% CI [1.09–2.09]). A post hoc analysis comparing low-burnout countries (Denmark, the Netherlands) to high-burnout ones (Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Greece) showed higher workloads (50.9% vs. 25.0%), understaffing (57.7% vs. 26.3%), and lack of support (46.4% vs. 18.4%) in the latter. Low personal accomplishment predictors included female gender (aOR 1.48; 95% CI [1.14–1.92]), younger age (aOR 0.32; 95% CI [0.21–0.49] for ≥55 years), and lack of senior academic position (aOR 0.59; 95% CI [0.39–0.90]). Unlike burnout, daily patient contact showed no association (aOR 0.98; 95% CI [0.73–1.31]) with low personal accomplishment, but laboratory hematologists had higher odds (aOR 1.87; 95% CI [1.04–3.52]).</p><p>This study, the first large-scale evaluation of burnout among European hematology professionals, reveals a high prevalence, with 50% experiencing burnout and 66% low personal accomplishment, aligning with oncology findings.<span><sup>1, 12</sup></span> Younger professionals, women, and those with daily patient contact or long hours were most affected, whereas senior academic roles were protective.</p><p>A key contribution of this study is the distinction between predictors of burnout and low personal accomplishment, underscoring the multifaceted nature of professional distress. While certain factors such as female gender, younger age, and junior academic status were associated with both outcomes, others were outcome-specific. Daily patient contact, for instance, was a strong predictor of burnout but showed no relationship with low personal accomplishment, suggesting that the emotionally taxing nature of clinical care may be offset by a sense of professional fulfillment due to recognition (by patients and families). Conversely, laboratory hematologists had higher odds of low personal accomplishment, potentially reflecting reduced patient interaction, limited recognition, or fewer opportunities for professional growth. Although this category is mixed, the rate of low personal accomplishment did not differ across laboratory-related professions.</p><p>Evidently, early-career hematologists face workload imbalance, uncertainty, and insufficient structural support, compounding emotional strain. On top of that, women (62% of respondents) may encounter disproportionate patient communication demands, domestic responsibilities, and workplace inequities like discrimination or limited leadership opportunities.<span><sup>8</sup></span> Fortunately, there are multiple ways to overcome these difficulties. Mentorship programs can support younger professionals by fostering career guidance and resilience, while peer support networks and recognition programs can mitigate isolation for laboratory hematologists. For women, schedule flexibility, equitable leadership pathways, and initiatives to address bias are critical to reducing burnout and enhancing fulfillment.</p><p>Beyond tailored interventions, exhaustion and professional satisfaction may only be resolved when systemic factors are efficiently addressed. In our study, lack of control, lack of support, and effective management were the strongest burnout drivers, echoing US studies framing burnout as a structural issue.<span><sup>13-15</sup></span> Systemic reforms, including optimized staffing, supportive leadership, and mentorship, are critical to enhance psychological safety.<span><sup>13</sup></span></p><p>Our study has several strengths, including a large, diverse sample of hematology professionals, use of a validated burnout measure (MBI-GS), and the inclusion of multilevel analyses. Nonetheless, limitations include a limited number of observed characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, sexuality, and disability were not described) and the possibility of response bias, particularly if individuals experiencing higher distress were more likely to respond. Last but not least, our cross-sectional design lacks longitudinal insight. The question of how burnout trajectories evolve over a career is critical. The observed protective effect of older age and senior academic roles might reflect either a selection effect—where those most affected by burnout leave clinical roles—or a natural adaptation to workplace demands over time. However, as West et al. emphasize, resilience levels among physicians are generally high, even in those experiencing burnout.<span><sup>15</sup></span> This suggests that while personal coping mechanisms may improve over time, structural workplace factors remain the primary contributors to burnout.</p><p>In conclusion, this first large-scale European study demonstrates that burnout in hematology is common and driven by modifiable systemic factors, not individual failings. The systemic nature of burnout is evident. Therefore, professional societies and healthcare systems must prioritize safer work frameworks, with effective limits on working hours, and develop tailored interventions for younger professionals and women. We urge a shift from expecting clinicians to “cope better” to implementing organizational reforms, ensuring high-quality care for patients with hematologic diseases.</p><p><b>Côme Bommier</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; software; data curation; formal analysis; visualization; investigation; validation; writing—review and editing; writing—original draft. <b>Adela Perolla</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing. <b>Ana Zelić Kerep</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing. <b>Ruxandra Irimia</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing; project administration. <b>Nikolia Iatrou</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; project administration; funding acquisition; resources. <b>Elizabeth Macintyre</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing; supervision. <b>Nuno Borges</b>: Conceptualization; methodology; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>The study was reviewed under EHA Membership Matters' internal research governance procedures, which are designed to assess ethical risks in line with professional research standards. This protocol was categorized as exempt from full ethical review for the following reasons: participation was entirely voluntary, no personally identifiable information was collected, and the design posed minimal risk and involved no intervention. Membership Matters' practitioners are all members of the Market Research Society (MRS) and conduct research in full compliance with stringent professional codes of conduct—particularly around participant confidentiality, informed consent, and data protection.</p><p>The survey was entirely sponsored by the European Hematology Association (EHA). EHA Engagement department also covered the APCs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HemaSphere\",\"volume\":\"9 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12456095/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HemaSphere\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hem3.70226\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HemaSphere","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hem3.70226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

职业倦怠是一种以情绪衰竭、人格解体和个人成就感降低为特征的与工作相关的综合症,在医学界已经达到了流行病的程度,对医疗保健提供者、患者和系统构成了重大威胁。1-3与移情能力降低、判断力受损和患者安全受损有关,4,5倦怠通常是由工作量过大、流程效率低下、行政负担、工作与家庭冲突以及忽视自我照顾等个人因素驱动的。年轻医生和女医生报告的倦怠率更高,女性经历更多的情绪衰竭,男性经历更多的人格解体在像肿瘤学这样的高压力专业,近45%的美国肿瘤学家报告说,临床工作时间长和病例量大是主要的预测因素血液学专业人员面临着类似的压力,在平衡临床和研究角色的同时管理危及生命的疾病然而,关于血液学家职业倦怠的专门研究仍然很少为了解决这一差距,欧洲血液学协会(EHA)于2024年发起了职业倦怠调查倡议,目的是评估和描述血液学界职业倦怠的患病率和主要驱动因素。使用一种有效的工具,该调查试图量化这一人群的职业倦怠负担,并探讨与职业倦怠发生相关的个人和工作因素。最终,我们的目标是产生血液学特定的见解,可以为该领域的专业人员提供有针对性的健康干预措施。我们在2024年9月至10月期间对EHA成员进行了横断面调查,目标是全球的血液学专业人员,包括临床血液学家、实验室血液学家、研究人员和培训生。该调查由EHA会员事务中心通过电子邮件向7890名会员发送,是一项匿名和自愿的调查,共发送了14,065封电子邮件,包括提醒,以提高回应率。该问卷于2024年9月10日至10月31日在网上开放,没有收集任何个人身份信息,确保了保密性。使用马斯拉奇职业倦怠量表(MBI-GS)来评估职业倦怠,这是一种有效的测量情绪耗竭、人格解体和个人成就的工具。倦怠定义为情绪耗竭≥27和/或人格解体≥10;调查包括MBI-GS项目、人口统计(年龄、性别和国家)和职业特征(角色、经验、工作量和患者接触)。排除了MBI-GS或人口统计数据不完整的参与者。描述性统计特征的样本和倦怠患病率。单变量关联使用卡方检验、Fisher精确检验、t检验或Mann-Whitney U检验。多变量逻辑回归确定了职业倦怠和低个人成就感的独立预测因子,采用逐步方法,最终调整了年龄、性别、职业、学术水平、工作时间和患者接触。影响幸福感的挑战在一个单独的模型中进行了分析。对调查对象≥10人的国家进行国家层面的差异分析,对年龄≤34岁的国家进行亚组分析。所有分析使用R版本4.3,P &lt; 0.05认为显著。在1843名受访者中,62%为女性,大多数年龄在25-54岁之间,32%年龄在35-44岁之间。参与者在43个国家的大学医院(57%)或综合医院(19%)工作,主要是意大利(13%)、西班牙(10%)、英国(8.8%)、德国(7.4%)和法国(6.9%)。临床血液学家占67%,其次是研究人员(9.4%)和生物医学科学家(4.6%)。近一半的人有15年的工作经验(41%),20%的人没有学术背景。大多数参与者每天直接参与病人护理(58%),而18%的人表示他们根本没有见过病人。日间轮班是主要的工作安排(91%);然而,也有相当比例的人在晚上(19%)、晚上(23%)、周末(40%)工作,或定期随叫随到(31%)。在工作量方面,超过80%的人每周工作时间≥40小时(35% 40 - 49小时,33% 50-59小时,18%≥60小时)。50%的受访者存在职业倦怠(高度情绪耗竭和/或人格解体)。平均情绪衰竭24 (SD 14), 42%评分≥27;43%的人每周有几次感到“筋疲力尽”,27%的人每周或每天都有几次感到情绪疲惫。平均人格解体为8分(SD 7), 34%得分≥10分;18%的人经常感到“情感上更冷酷”,16%的人表示变得麻木不仁。值得注意的是,在至少有10名受访者的29个国家/地区中,职业倦怠患病率表现出明显的差异(图1)。最低的是荷兰(23%)和丹麦(24%),而最高的是保加利亚(82%)、塞浦路斯(70%)、葡萄牙(67%)、爱尔兰(65%)和希腊(63%)。 在年轻专业人员(≤34岁)中,捷克共和国(82%)和希腊(81%)的严重职业倦怠率特别高。值得注意的是,在整个样本中,年轻专业人士的职业倦怠率远高于全国平均水平,即使在已知职业倦怠率较低的国家也是如此(例如,荷兰:年轻专业人士的职业倦怠率为62%,而总体水平为23%)。低个人成就感(得分&lt; 34)影响66%,平均个人成就感得分为28 (SD 10)。然而,44%的人每周都对他人产生积极影响,36%的人每周都感到精力充沛。个人成就感低的现象很普遍,在希腊有90%的年轻受访者受到影响,在葡萄牙、西班牙、意大利和英国有75%的受访者受到影响。多变量logistic回归确定了职业倦怠的预测因素(图2):女性(校正比值比[aOR] 1.36; 95% CI[1.05-1.76])、每周工作40-59小时(aOR 1.84; 95% CI[1.24-2.75])、每周≥60小时(aOR 2.95; 95% CI[1.84 - 4.77])、每日接触患者(1.77[1.33-2.36])。年龄越小风险越大(aOR 0.35, 95% CI [0.23-0.52] vs. 35岁),而高级学术职位具有保护作用(aOR 0.62, 95% CI[0.41-0.93])。在实验室职业中,生物医学科学家(50%)和生物学家(46%)的职业倦怠率高于实验室正式员工(25.6%)。与职业倦怠相关的主要挑战包括缺乏控制和自主性(aOR 2.52; 95% CI[1.81-3.53])、缺乏支持(aOR 2.36; 95% CI[1.77-3.17])、管理不善(aOR 1.73; 95% CI[1.29-2.32])、工作与生活不平衡(aOR 1.97; 95% CI[1.46-2.67])、情绪需求(aOR 1.61; 95% CI[1.16-2.22])、人员不足(aOR 1.62; 95% CI[1.22-2.15])、患者数量大(aOR 1.54; 95% CI[1.12-2.12])和高负荷工作(aOR 1.51; 95% CI[1.09-2.09])。一项对低倦怠国家(丹麦、荷兰)和高倦怠国家(保加利亚、塞浦路斯和希腊)的事后分析显示,后者的工作量更高(50.9%对25.0%),人员不足(57.7%对26.3%),缺乏支持(46.4%对18.4%)。低个人成就预测因子包括女性(aOR 1.48; 95% CI[1.14-1.92])、年龄较小(≥55岁的aOR 0.32; 95% CI[0.21-0.49])和缺乏高级学术职位(aOR 0.59; 95% CI[0.39-0.90])。与职业倦怠不同,每天与患者接触与个人成就感低没有关联(aOR 0.98; 95% CI[0.73-1.31]),但实验室血液科医师的相关性更高(aOR 1.87; 95% CI[1.04-3.52])。这项研究首次对欧洲血液学专业人员的职业倦怠进行了大规模评估,结果显示,职业倦怠的患病率很高,50%的人经历过职业倦怠,66%的人个人成就感低,这与肿瘤学研究结果一致。1,12年轻的专业人士、女性和那些每天与病人接触或工作时间较长的人受影响最大,而高级学术角色则具有保护作用。本研究的一个重要贡献是区分了职业倦怠和低个人成就感的预测因子,强调了职业压力的多面性。虽然某些因素,如女性性别、年龄较小、学术地位较低,与这两种结果有关,但其他因素则与结果有关。例如,每天与病人接触是职业倦怠的一个强有力的预测指标,但与低个人成就感没有关系,这表明临床护理的情感负担性质可能会被(患者和家属)认可带来的职业成就感所抵消。相反,实验室血液学家的个人成就感较低的几率更高,这可能反映了与患者的互动减少、认可有限或职业成长机会较少。尽管这一类别是混合的,但在与实验室相关的职业中,低个人成就的比例并没有差异。显然,早期职业血液学家面临着工作量不平衡、不确定性和结构支持不足,加剧了情绪紧张。最重要的是,女性(62%的受访者)可能会遇到不成比例的患者沟通需求、家庭责任以及工作场所的不平等,如歧视或领导机会有限幸运的是,有多种方法可以克服这些困难。导师计划可以通过培养职业指导和适应能力来支持年轻的专业人员,而同伴支持网络和认可计划可以减轻实验室血液学家的孤立。对于女性来说,灵活的工作时间、公平的领导途径以及消除偏见的举措对于减少倦怠和提高成就感至关重要。除了量身定制的干预措施外,只有有效地解决系统因素,才能解决疲劳和职业满意度问题。在我们的研究中,缺乏控制、缺乏支持和有效管理是最强烈的倦怠驱动因素,这与美国将倦怠视为结构性问题的研究相呼应。 13-15系统改革,包括优化人员配置、支持性领导和指导,对加强心理安全至关重要。我们的研究有几个优势,包括血液学专业人员的大量不同样本,使用有效的职业倦怠测量(MBI-GS),并包括多水平分析。然而,局限性包括观察到的特征数量有限(例如,种族、性别和残疾没有被描述)和反应偏差的可能性,特别是如果经历更高痛苦的个体更有可能做出反应。最后但并非最不重要的是,我们的横断面设计缺乏纵向洞察力。职业倦怠轨迹在职业生涯中是如何演变的,这个问题至关重要。观察到的年龄较大和高级学术角色的保护作用可能反映了一种选择效应——那些受倦怠影响最大的人离开临床角色——或者随着时间的推移对工作场所需求的自然适应。然而,正如韦斯特等人所强调的,医生的恢复能力水平普遍较高,即使是那些经历过职业倦怠的医生这表明,虽然个人应对机制可能会随着时间的推移而改善,但结构性工作场所因素仍然是导致职业倦怠的主要因素。总之,这项欧洲首次大规模研究表明,血液学中的倦怠是常见的,由可改变的系统因素驱动,而不是个体的失败。倦怠的系统性本质是显而易见的。因此,专业协会和卫生保健系统必须优先考虑更安全的工作框架,有效限制工作时间,并为年轻专业人员和妇女制定量身定制的干预措施。我们敦促从期望临床医生“更好地应对”到实施组织改革的转变,确保血液病患者的高质量护理diseases.Côme Bommier:概念化;方法;软件;数据管理;正式的分析;可视化;调查;验证;写作——审阅和编辑;原创作品。Adela Perolla:概念化;方法;写作-审查和编辑。Ana zeliki Kerep:概念化;方法;写作-审查和编辑。Ruxandra Irimia:概念化;方法;写作——审阅和编辑;项目管理。Nikolia Iatrou:概念化;方法;项目管理;资金收购;资源。伊丽莎白·麦金泰尔:概念化;方法;调查;资金收购;写作——审阅和编辑;监督。努诺·博尔赫斯:概念化;方法;监督;项目管理;资金收购;写作-审查和编辑。作者声明无利益冲突。这项研究是根据EHA会员事务的内部研究管治程序进行检讨的,该程序旨在根据专业研究标准评估道德风险。由于以下原因,本方案被归类为免于全面伦理审查:完全自愿参与,不收集个人身份信息,设计风险最小,不涉及干预。会员事务的从业人员都是市场研究协会(MRS)的成员,并完全遵守严格的专业行为准则进行研究,特别是在参与者保密、知情同意和数据保护方面。这项调查完全由欧洲血液学协会(EHA)赞助。EHA的业务部门也负责apc。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Burnout symptoms among hematology professionals: An EHA survey

Burnout symptoms among hematology professionals: An EHA survey

Burnout, a work-related syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, has reached epidemic levels in medicine, posing significant threats to healthcare providers, patients, and systems.1-3 Associated with reduced empathy, impaired judgment, and compromised patient safety,4, 5 burnout is generally driven by excessive workload, inefficient processes, administrative burden, and work–home conflict, alongside personal factors like neglect of self-care.6, 7 Younger and female physicians report higher burnout rates, with women experiencing more emotional exhaustion and men greater depersonalization.8 In high-stress specialties like oncology, nearly 45% of US oncologists report burnout, with long clinical hours and caseloads as dominant predictors.1 Hematology professionals face similar pressures, managing life-threatening diseases while balancing clinical and research roles.9 However, dedicated studies on burnout in hematologists remain scarce.10 To address this gap, the European Hematology Association (EHA) launched the Burnout Survey Initiative in 2024, with the goal of assessing and characterizing the prevalence and key drivers of burnout within the hematology community. Using a validated instrument, the survey sought to quantify the burden of burnout in this population and to explore both personal and work-related factors associated with its occurrence. Ultimately, our aim was to generate hematology-specific insights that could inform targeted well-being interventions for professionals in the field.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EHA members between September and October 2024, targeting hematology professionals worldwide, including clinical hematologists, laboratory hematologists, researchers, and trainees. The survey, disseminated by the EHA Membership Matters Center via email to 7890 members, was anonymous and voluntary, with 14,065 email communications sent, including reminders, to improve response rates. The questionnaire, accessible online from September 10 to October 31, 2024, collected no personally identifiable information, ensuring confidentiality. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), a validated tool measuring emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Burnout was defined as emotional exhaustion ≥27 and/or depersonalization ≥10; low personal accomplishment when <34.1, 11 The survey included MBI-GS items, demographics (age, gender, and country), and professional characteristics (role, experience, workload, and patient contact). Participants with incomplete MBI-GS or demographic data were excluded. Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and burnout prevalence. Univariate associations used chi-square, Fisher's exact, t-tests, or Mann–Whitney U tests. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of burnout and low personal accomplishment, using a stepwise approach, finally adjusting for age, gender, profession, academic level, working hours, and patient contact. Challenges impacting well-being were analyzed in a separate model. Country-level variations were explored for countries with ≥10 respondents, with a subgroup analysis for those ≤34 years. All analyses used R version 4.3, with P < 0.05 considered significant.

Of 1843 respondents, 62% were female, and most were aged 25–54 years, with 32% aged 35–44. Participants worked in university hospitals (57%) or general hospitals (19%), spanning 43 countries, primarily Italy (13%), Spain (10%), the United Kingdom (8.8%), Germany (7.4%), and France (6.9%). Clinical hematologists comprised 67%, followed by researchers (9.4%) and biomedical scientists (4.6%). Nearly half had >15 years' experience (41%), and 20% had no academic affiliation. Most participants were involved in direct patient care on a daily basis (58%), while 18% indicated that they did not see patients at all. Daytime shift-work was the predominant work schedule (91%); however, substantial proportions also worked evenings (19%), nights (23%), weekends (40%), or participated in regular on-call duties (31%). Regarding workload, over 80% worked ≥40 h/week (35% 40–49 h, 33% 50–59 h, and 18% ≥60 h).

Burnout was present in 50% of respondents (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization). Mean emotional exhaustion was 24 (SD 14), with 42% scoring ≥27; 43% felt “worn out” several times weekly, and 27% reported feeling emotionally exhausted several times a week or daily. Mean depersonalization was 8 (SD 7), with 34% scoring ≥10; 18% felt “emotionally harder” frequently, and 16% reported increased callousness. Notably, among 29 countries/regions with at least 10 respondents, burnout prevalence showed marked variability (Figure 1). The lowest rates were observed in the Netherlands (23%) and in Denmark (24%), whereas the highest were reported in Bulgaria (82%), Cyprus (70%), Portugal (67%), Ireland (65%), and Greece (63%). Among young professionals (≤34 years), rates of severe burnout were particularly elevated in the Czech Republic (82%) and Greece (81%). Notably, burnout rates among young professionals were considerably higher than the national averages observed in the full sample, even in countries known to have less burnout (e.g., the Netherlands: 62% among young vs. 23% overall). Low personal accomplishment (score < 34) affected 66%, with a mean personal accomplishment score of 28 (SD 10). However, 44% reported positively influencing others weekly, and 36% felt energetic weekly. Low personal accomplishment was prevalent, affecting >90% of young respondents in Greece and >75% in Portugal, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of burnout (Figure 2): female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.36; 95% CI [1.05–1.76]), working 40–59 h/week (aOR 1.84; 95% CI [1.24–2.75]), ≥60 h/week (aOR 2.95; 95% CI [1.84–4.77]), and daily patient contact (1.77 [1.33–2.36]). Younger age increased risk (aOR 0.35; 95% CI [0.23–0.52] for ≥55 years vs. <35 years), whereas senior academic positions were protective (aOR 0.62; 95% CI [0.41–0.93]). Among laboratory professions, burnout was higher in biomedical scientists (50%) and biologists (46%) than lab permanent staff (25.6%). Key challenges associated with burnout included lack of control and autonomy (aOR 2.52; 95% CI [1.81–3.53]), lack of support (aOR 2.36; 95% CI [1.77–3.17]), poor management (aOR 1.73; 95% CI [1.29–2.32]), work–life imbalance (aOR 1.97; 95% CI [1.46–2.67]), emotional demands (aOR 1.61; 95% CI [1.16–2.22]), inadequate staffing (aOR 1.62; 95% CI [1.22–2.15]), high patient volume (aOR 1.54; 95% CI [1.12–2.12]), and intense workloads (aOR 1.51; 95% CI [1.09–2.09]). A post hoc analysis comparing low-burnout countries (Denmark, the Netherlands) to high-burnout ones (Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Greece) showed higher workloads (50.9% vs. 25.0%), understaffing (57.7% vs. 26.3%), and lack of support (46.4% vs. 18.4%) in the latter. Low personal accomplishment predictors included female gender (aOR 1.48; 95% CI [1.14–1.92]), younger age (aOR 0.32; 95% CI [0.21–0.49] for ≥55 years), and lack of senior academic position (aOR 0.59; 95% CI [0.39–0.90]). Unlike burnout, daily patient contact showed no association (aOR 0.98; 95% CI [0.73–1.31]) with low personal accomplishment, but laboratory hematologists had higher odds (aOR 1.87; 95% CI [1.04–3.52]).

This study, the first large-scale evaluation of burnout among European hematology professionals, reveals a high prevalence, with 50% experiencing burnout and 66% low personal accomplishment, aligning with oncology findings.1, 12 Younger professionals, women, and those with daily patient contact or long hours were most affected, whereas senior academic roles were protective.

A key contribution of this study is the distinction between predictors of burnout and low personal accomplishment, underscoring the multifaceted nature of professional distress. While certain factors such as female gender, younger age, and junior academic status were associated with both outcomes, others were outcome-specific. Daily patient contact, for instance, was a strong predictor of burnout but showed no relationship with low personal accomplishment, suggesting that the emotionally taxing nature of clinical care may be offset by a sense of professional fulfillment due to recognition (by patients and families). Conversely, laboratory hematologists had higher odds of low personal accomplishment, potentially reflecting reduced patient interaction, limited recognition, or fewer opportunities for professional growth. Although this category is mixed, the rate of low personal accomplishment did not differ across laboratory-related professions.

Evidently, early-career hematologists face workload imbalance, uncertainty, and insufficient structural support, compounding emotional strain. On top of that, women (62% of respondents) may encounter disproportionate patient communication demands, domestic responsibilities, and workplace inequities like discrimination or limited leadership opportunities.8 Fortunately, there are multiple ways to overcome these difficulties. Mentorship programs can support younger professionals by fostering career guidance and resilience, while peer support networks and recognition programs can mitigate isolation for laboratory hematologists. For women, schedule flexibility, equitable leadership pathways, and initiatives to address bias are critical to reducing burnout and enhancing fulfillment.

Beyond tailored interventions, exhaustion and professional satisfaction may only be resolved when systemic factors are efficiently addressed. In our study, lack of control, lack of support, and effective management were the strongest burnout drivers, echoing US studies framing burnout as a structural issue.13-15 Systemic reforms, including optimized staffing, supportive leadership, and mentorship, are critical to enhance psychological safety.13

Our study has several strengths, including a large, diverse sample of hematology professionals, use of a validated burnout measure (MBI-GS), and the inclusion of multilevel analyses. Nonetheless, limitations include a limited number of observed characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, sexuality, and disability were not described) and the possibility of response bias, particularly if individuals experiencing higher distress were more likely to respond. Last but not least, our cross-sectional design lacks longitudinal insight. The question of how burnout trajectories evolve over a career is critical. The observed protective effect of older age and senior academic roles might reflect either a selection effect—where those most affected by burnout leave clinical roles—or a natural adaptation to workplace demands over time. However, as West et al. emphasize, resilience levels among physicians are generally high, even in those experiencing burnout.15 This suggests that while personal coping mechanisms may improve over time, structural workplace factors remain the primary contributors to burnout.

In conclusion, this first large-scale European study demonstrates that burnout in hematology is common and driven by modifiable systemic factors, not individual failings. The systemic nature of burnout is evident. Therefore, professional societies and healthcare systems must prioritize safer work frameworks, with effective limits on working hours, and develop tailored interventions for younger professionals and women. We urge a shift from expecting clinicians to “cope better” to implementing organizational reforms, ensuring high-quality care for patients with hematologic diseases.

Côme Bommier: Conceptualization; methodology; software; data curation; formal analysis; visualization; investigation; validation; writing—review and editing; writing—original draft. Adela Perolla: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing. Ana Zelić Kerep: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing. Ruxandra Irimia: Conceptualization; methodology; writing—review and editing; project administration. Nikolia Iatrou: Conceptualization; methodology; project administration; funding acquisition; resources. Elizabeth Macintyre: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing; supervision. Nuno Borges: Conceptualization; methodology; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition; writing—review and editing.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The study was reviewed under EHA Membership Matters' internal research governance procedures, which are designed to assess ethical risks in line with professional research standards. This protocol was categorized as exempt from full ethical review for the following reasons: participation was entirely voluntary, no personally identifiable information was collected, and the design posed minimal risk and involved no intervention. Membership Matters' practitioners are all members of the Market Research Society (MRS) and conduct research in full compliance with stringent professional codes of conduct—particularly around participant confidentiality, informed consent, and data protection.

The survey was entirely sponsored by the European Hematology Association (EHA). EHA Engagement department also covered the APCs.

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
HemaSphere
HemaSphere Medicine-Hematology
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.50%
发文量
2776
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: HemaSphere, as a publication, is dedicated to disseminating the outcomes of profoundly pertinent basic, translational, and clinical research endeavors within the field of hematology. The journal actively seeks robust studies that unveil novel discoveries with significant ramifications for hematology. In addition to original research, HemaSphere features review articles and guideline articles that furnish lucid synopses and discussions of emerging developments, along with recommendations for patient care. Positioned as the foremost resource in hematology, HemaSphere augments its offerings with specialized sections like HemaTopics and HemaPolicy. These segments engender insightful dialogues covering a spectrum of hematology-related topics, including digestible summaries of pivotal articles, updates on new therapies, deliberations on European policy matters, and other noteworthy news items within the field. Steering the course of HemaSphere are Editor in Chief Jan Cools and Deputy Editor in Chief Claire Harrison, alongside the guidance of an esteemed Editorial Board comprising international luminaries in both research and clinical realms, each representing diverse areas of hematologic expertise.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信