Center for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1344-1351. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4507-6. Epub 2018 Jun 4.
Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare.
To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure.
Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017).
Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems.
The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009).
Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity.
Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.
临床医生和医疗保健人员报告称,他们的倦怠程度很高。两种常见的倦怠评估方法是马斯拉赫倦怠量表(MBI)和单一项目、自我定义的倦怠衡量标准。相对而言,人们对这些衡量标准的比较知之甚少。
确定自我定义的倦怠衡量标准与更成熟的 MBI 衡量标准相比的敏感性、特异性和同时效度。
横断面调查(2016 年 11 月至 2017 年 1 月)。
来自旧金山三个医疗系统的 444 名初级保健临床医生和 606 名工作人员。
MBI 衡量标准,根据情绪衰竭或玩世不恭子量表的高分计算得出,以及自我定义的倦怠单一衡量标准。同时效度通过使用Willard-Grace 等人(J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014)报告的经过验证的 7 项团队文化量表和 Rassolian 等人(JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017)和 Linzer 等人(Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009)报告的关于工作场所氛围的标准问题进行评估。
与其他具有全国代表性的倦怠估计相似,52%的临床医生(95%CI:47-57%)和 46%的工作人员(95%CI:42-50%)报告 MBI 情绪衰竭或 MBI 玩世不恭较高。相比之下,29%的临床医生(95%CI:25-33%)和 31%的工作人员(95%CI:28-35%)报告“肯定精疲力竭”或自我定义的倦怠衡量标准更严重的症状。自我定义的衡量标准对正确识别 MBI 评估的倦怠的敏感性为 50.4%的临床医生和 58.6%的工作人员;特异性为 94.7%的临床医生和 92.3%的工作人员。临床医生和工作人员的接收者操作特征曲线下面积分别为 0.82 和 0.81。团队文化和氛围与自我定义的倦怠和 MBI 均显著相关,证实了同时效度。
自我定义和 MBI 衡量标准之间的倦怠点估计差异显著。与 MBI 相比,自我定义的倦怠衡量标准错过了一半的高倦怠临床医生和超过 40%的高倦怠工作人员。自我定义的倦怠衡量标准负担较低,免费管理,并在两项来自先前研究的倦怠预测因素中产生相似的关联。然而,自我定义的倦怠和 MBI 衡量标准不可互换。