Dual role as a protective factor for burnout-related depersonalization in oncologists.

PURPOSE

This study compared self-reported burnout between dual-role oncologists (oncologists who also do psychosocial work) and single-role oncologists, to explore if dual role is protective against or a risk factor for burnout.

METHODS

Dual-role oncologists from across China (n = 131) were consecutively recruited via the Chinese Psychosocial Oncology Society and asked to identify single-role oncologist peers (n = 168) working in the same institution. Participants completed an anonymous online questionnaire, which included measures of demographic and work characteristics, Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey, the Short Version Effort-Reward Inventory, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Scales, and Work and Meaning Inventory. Fully adjusted multivariate analyses compared burnout scores for the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Group analysis revealed single-role participants' scores indicated significantly poorer performance than dual-role participants for depersonalization (DP), work-family conflict (JD-R demands scale), and decision authority (JD-R scale). Single-role participants showed an increased risk of DP. Higher effort-reward imbalance ratio predicted greater DP in single-, dual-role and pooled participants, and emotional exhaustion (EE) in pooled- and dual-role participants. Overcommitment was independently associated with EE in all 3 groupings, with JD-R scores among pooled- and dual-role groups, while higher decision authority scores were associated with decreased EE. Work and Meaning Inventory was associated with a decreased risk of DP among pooled and dual-role participants.

CONCLUSION

Differences in burnout-related DP scores between dual- and single-role oncologists are consistent with a protective effect from a psychosocial orientation in oncologists.