Ahola Kirsi, Honkonen Teija, Virtanen Marianna, Kivimäki Mika, Isometsä Erkki, Aromaa Arpo, Lönnqvist Jouko
Centre of Expertise for Work Organizations, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.
J Occup Environ Med. 2007 Sep;49(9):943-52. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31813736e3.
To study participation in occupational and individual-focused interventions in relation to burnout.
We used data from a questionnaire, structured interview, national register of psychopharmacological prescriptions, and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview in a nationally representative Finnish sample of 3276 employees (30 to 64 years).
When compared with employees free of burnout, the odds ratio of severe burnout for participation in occupational interventions was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26 to 0.65) and in individual-focused interventions 5.36 (95% CI = 3.14 to 9.17). Antidepressant prescriptions were 2.53 (95% CI = 1.04 to 6.15) times more common among those with severe burnout than among those without burnout after adjustment for depressive and anxiety disorders.
Employees with burnout were less often targets of occupational interventions but participated more in individual-focused interventions when compared with other employees. The use of antidepressants among employees with severe burnout was not fully explained by coexisting depressive or anxiety disorders.
研究参与职业干预和个人聚焦干预与职业倦怠的关系。
我们使用了来自问卷调查、结构化访谈、国家精神药理学处方登记册以及综合国际诊断访谈的数据，这些数据来自芬兰全国具有代表性的3276名员工（30至64岁）样本。
与未出现职业倦怠的员工相比，参与职业干预的员工出现严重职业倦怠的比值比为0.41（95%置信区间[CI]=0.26至0.65），而参与个人聚焦干预的员工出现严重职业倦怠的比值比为5.36（95%CI=3.14至9.17）。在对抑郁和焦虑障碍进行调整后，严重职业倦怠员工的抗抑郁药处方量是未出现职业倦怠员工的2.53倍（95%CI=1.04至6.15）。
与其他员工相比，出现职业倦怠的员工较少成为职业干预的对象，但更多地参与个人聚焦干预。严重职业倦怠员工使用抗抑郁药的情况不能完全由并存的抑郁或焦虑障碍来解释。
