4.4 Article

Stressors and Coping Mechanisms Related to Burnout Within Urology

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 139, 期 -, 页码 27-35

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.072

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To identify factors and stress coping mechanisms associated with burnout within the field of urology. METHODS A survey study was completed using the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory to evaluate emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal achievement. Demographic information, training status, practice setting, work hours, and mechanisms used to cope with stress were evaluated. Participants were also asked to comment on contributors to burnout in an open-ended question. Univariate analysis and multivariate regression identified factors associated with measures of burnout. RESULTS A total of 476 survey responses from 377 practicing urologists and 99 residents/fellows were included. Burnout was identified in 49.6% of all participants. Burnout through high emotional exhaustion was seen in 40.7%, high depersonalization in 30.7%, and low personal achievement in 18.3%. Trainees exhibited higher levels of depersonalization and lower levels of personal achievement. Higher levels of emotional exhaustion were identified in urologists in the middle of their careers and those in private practice. Urologists identified documentation, insurance and reimbursement, government regulations, medical practice expectations, and patient expectations as stressors contributing to burnout. Exercising and socializing were consistently associated with lower measures of burnout whereas stress eating and alcohol use were associated with higher measures of burnout on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION Burnout in urology was associated with trainee status, years in practice, and practice setting. Exercising and socializing were protective against burnout whereas stress eating and alcohol consumption were associated with higher rates of burnout. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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