4.6 Article

Prevalence of burnout among Swiss cancer clinicians, paediatricians and general practitioners: who are most at risk?

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 75-81

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-008-0465-6

Keywords

Burnout; Cancer physicians; Primary care; Workload

Funding

  1. Division of oncology
  2. Department of internal medicine
  3. Geneva University Hospitals
  4. Amgen Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Goals of work Increasing economical and administrative constraints and changes in health-care systems constitute a risk for burnout, especially for cancer physicians. However, little is known about differences across medical specialties and the importance of work characteristics. Methods A postal questionnaire addressing burnout, psychiatric morbidity, sociodemographics and work characteristics was administered to 180 cancer physicians, 184 paediatricians and 197 general practitioners in Switzerland. Results A total of 371 (66%) physicians participated in the survey. Overall, one third of the respondents expressed signs indicative of psychiatric morbidity and of burnout, including high levels of emotional exhaustion (33%) and depersonalisation/cynicism (28%) and a reduced feeling of personal accomplishment (20%). Workload (>50 h/week), lack of continuing education (< 6 h/month) and working in a public institution were significantly associated with an increased risk of burnout. After adjustment for these characteristics, general practitioners had a higher risk for emotional exhaustion ( OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.6) and depersonalisation ( OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.3). Conclusion In this Swiss sample, cancer clinicians had a significant lower risk of burnout, despite a more important workload. Among possible explanations, involvement in research and teaching activities and access to continuing education may have protected them.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available