4.4 Article

Evaluating stress, burnout and job satisfaction in New Zealand radiation oncology departments

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 82-88

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12098

Keywords

burnout; job satisfaction; oncology care workers; radiation therapists; cancer

Funding

  1. Cancer Society of New Zealand, Wellington Division

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research aimed to determine the levels of occupational stress, burnout and job satisfaction among radiation oncology workers across New Zealand. All oncology staff practising in all eight radiation oncology departments in New Zealand were invited to participate anonymously in a questionnaire, which consisted of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and measures of stress intensity associated with specific occupational stressors, stress reduction strategies and job satisfaction. A total of 171 (out of 349) complete responses were analysed using spss 19; there were 23 oncologists, 111 radiation therapists, 22 radiation nurses and 15 radiation physicists. All participants, regardless of profession, reported high stress levels associated with both patient-centred and organisational stressors. Participants scored high in all three domains of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment. Interestingly, although organisational stressors predicted higher emotional exhaustion and emotional exhaustion predicted lower job satisfaction, patient stressors were associated with higher job satisfaction. Job satisfaction initiatives such as ongoing education, mentoring and role extension were supported by many participants as was addressing organisational stressors, such as lack of recognition and support from management and unrealistic expectations and demands. New Zealand staff exhibit higher levels of burnout than Maslach Burnout Inventory medical norms and oncology workers in previous international studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available