4.6 Article

Self-valuation: Attending to the Most Important Instrument in the Practice of Medicine

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 94, 期 10, 页码 2022-2031

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.04.040

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To measure self-valuation, involving constructive prioritization of personal well-being and a growth mindset perspective that seeks to learn and improve as the primary response to errors, in physicians and evaluate its relationship with burnout and sleep-related impairment. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional survey data collected between July 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017, from 5 academic medical centers in the United States. All faculty and medical-staff physicians at participating organizations were invited to participate. The self-valuation scale included 4 items measured on a 5-point (0-4) Likert scale (summative score range, 0-16). The self-valuation scale was developed and pilot tested in a sample of 250 physicians before inclusion in the multisite wellness survey, which also included validated measures of burnout and sleep-related impairment. Results: Of the 6189 physicians invited to participate, 3899 responded (response rate, 63.0%). Each 1-point score increase in self-valuation was associated with -1.10 point lower burnout score (95% CI, -1.16 to -1.05; standardized beta=-0.53; P<.001) and 0.81 point lower sleep-related impairment score (95% CI, -0.85 to -0.76; standardized beta=-0.47; P<.001), adjusting for sex and medical specialty. Women had lower self-valuation (Cohen d=0.30) and higher burnout (Cohen d=0.22) than men. Lower self-valuation scores in women accounted for most of the sex difference in burnout. Conclusion: Low self-valuation among physicians is associated with burnout and sleep-related impairment. Further research is warranted to develop and test interventions that increase self-valuation as a mechanism to improve physician well-being. (C) 2019 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

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

4.6
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