4.6 Article

A pilot study exploring interventions for physician distress in pediatric subspecialists

Journal

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 88, Issue 3, Pages 398-403

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-020-0805-x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background While institution-sponsored wellness programs may be effective, little is known about their availability and utilization in pediatric subspecialists, and about programs physicians wish were available. Methods A survey of perceptions about, and availability and utilization of institutional wellness activities, was distributed electronically to pediatric subspecialists nationally. Bivariate analyses were performed using chi(2) tests or independent t tests. Multivariable logistic regression models for categories of institution-sponsored programming as a function of potential predictors of program utilization were performed. Qualitative content analysis was performed for free-text survey answers. Results Approximately 60% of respondents participated in institution-sponsored wellness opportunities. Debriefs, Schwartz Center Rounds, mental health services, and team building events were the most available institution-sponsored wellness activities, whereas debriefs, team building, Schwartz Center Rounds, and pet therapy were most frequently utilized. Respondents desired greater social/emotional support, improved leadership, enhanced organizational support, and modifications to the physical work environment, with no significant differences across subspecialties for wish list items. Conclusions Physician wellness requires more than a one-size-fits-all initiative. Our data highlight the importance of encouraging and normalizing self-care practices, and of listening to what physicians articulate about their needs. Pre-implementation needs assessment allows a bottom-up approach where physician voices can be heard.

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