4.2 Article

Resident Perspectives on Work-Life Policies and Implications for Burnout

Journal

ACADEMIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 73-77

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40596-017-0757-6

Keywords

Burnout; Residents; Work-life

Funding

  1. Sloan Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective As resident burnout increases, there is a need for better awareness, resources, and interventions. Challenges in balancing work and life priorities have been implicated in contributing to physician burnout. Institutional work-life policies (WLPs) are critical tools to meet work-life needs. This study investigates the influence of WLPs on residents' experiences. Methods The authors emailed a SurveyMonkey link to the APA chief resident and Minority Fellow listservs and directly to 94 psychiatry program directors and 52 fellowship directors nationwide to distribute a survey to residents regarding WLP use and barriers, as well as burnout. Estimated response rate was 12-23%. The authors assessed the anonymous responses using SPSS to evaluate for relationships between awareness of WLPs, perceptions/barriers surrounding their usage, and burnout. Results The authors analyzed 255 responses. Awareness and use of policies ranged from 2 to 33%. A prominent barrier to WLPs is that use results in shifting workload to co-residents (48% agree). Respondents who perceived leadership to view use of WLPs as a sign of weakness (16% agree) were less likely to use WLPs (t (89) = -3.52, p < 0.001, d = 0.61). Residents with burnout (41%) perceived vastly higher barriers to using WLPs as compared to those without burnout. Conclusions This study supports the need for further investigation of WLPs to mitigate resident burnout and identifies important perceived barriers that affect the use of WLPs including low awareness, potential for shifting workload to co-residents, and negative perceptions of leadership attitudes toward WLPs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available