4.3 Article

Patients with burnout in relation to gender and a general population

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 516-523

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14034940701271874

Keywords

burnout professional; fatigue syndrome; social support; workload; population surveillance; epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The aims of this study were to describe gender differences in patients with burnout and compare these patients with a general population with respect to physical, psychosocial and work variables. Methods: Data were collected from a total of 136 patients ( 96 women and 40 men, 41,6 +/- 7,4 years), diagnosed with stress-related disease and burnout at the Stress Clinic, University Hospital of Umea. Data on burnout, physical, psychosocial and work characteristics were compared with similar data from a geographical and age-matched population based survey, the 2004 Northern Sweden MONICA study. The survey sample included a total of 573 participants ( 283 women and 290 men, 40,7 +/- 8,5 years). Results: Women with burnout reported a higher rate of impaired awakening, lower job control, greater proportion of unpaid work and worked to a greater extent with people'' compared to men. Men with burnout had a more restricted social network and reported working more overtime than women. Patients with burnout reported a higher rate of unemployment, a more restricted social network and higher work demands compared to a general population. Women with burnout reported less emotional support, a more sedentary work situation, high job strain and worked to a greater extent with people'' than women from the general population. Conclusions: There are some differences in working conditions and social network between women and men with burnout. Patients with burnout differ from a general population regarding individual and social factors as well as work-related factors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available