4.3 Article

The Management Standards Indicator Tool and evaluation of burnout

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
卷 63, 期 2, 页码 145-147

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqs217

关键词

Burnout; Management Standards Indicator Tool; Maslach Burnout Inventory; stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Psychosocial hazards in the workplace can impact upon employee health. The UK Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Management Standards Indicator Tool (MSIT) appears to have utility in relation to health impacts but we were unable to find studies relating it to burnout. Aims To explore the utility of the MSIT in evaluating risk of burnout assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). Methods This was a cross-sectional survey of 128 borough council employees. MSIT data were analysed according to MSIT and MBI-GS threshold scores and by using multivariate linear regression with MBI-GS factors as dependent variables. Results MSIT factor scores were gradated according to categories of risk of burnout according to published MBI-GS thresholds, and identified priority workplace concerns as demands, relationships, role and change. These factors also featured as significant independent variables, with control, in outcomes of the regression analysis. Exhaustion was associated with demands and control (adjusted R-2 = 0.331); cynicism was associated with change, role and demands (adjusted R-2 =0.429); and professional efficacy was associated with managerial support, role, control and demands (adjusted R-2 = 0.413). Conclusions MSIT analysis generally has congruence with MBI-GS assessment of burnout. The identification of control within regression models but not as a priority concern in the MSIT analysis could suggest an issue of the setting of the MSIT thresholds for this factor, but verification requires a much larger study. Incorporation of relationship, role and change into the MSIT, missing from other conventional tools, appeared to add to its validity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据