3.8 Article

A qualitative study of physicians' own wellness-promotion practices

Journal

WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 174, Issue 1, Pages 19-23

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1136/ewjm.174.1.19

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To delineate the specific practices that physicians use to promote their own well-being. Design, setting, and participants 304 members of a primary care practice-based research group responded by mail to a survey on physician well-being. From the original survey, 130 subjects responded to an open-ended survey item regarding their own wellness-promotion practices. Methods Qualitative content analysis was used to identify the common themes in the physicians' responses to the open-ended question. A validated 18-item instrument, the Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB), was used for measurement. Main outcome measures Similarities and differences between the various wellness-promotion practices that respondents reported using and associations between the use of these practices and SPWB scores. Results The 5 primary wellness-promotion practices that evolved from thematic analysis of the survey responses included relationships, religion or spirituality, self-care, work, and approaches to life. The use of the last type of practice was significantly associated with increased psychological well-being (SPWB) scores compared with the use of any of the other wellness-promotion practice categories (P<0.01), and there was a trend toward increased well-being among users of any category of wellness-promotion practices. Comments by our respondents provide specific descriptions of how physicians attend to their emotional, spiritual, and psychological well-being. Conclusion Physicians use a variety of approaches to promote their own well-being, which son: themselves into 5 main categories and appear to correlate with improved levels of psychological well-being among users.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available