4.4 Review

Cognitive function in clinical burnout: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

WORK AND STRESS
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 86-104

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2021.2002972

关键词

Burnout; cognition; systematic review; meta-analysis

资金

  1. FORTE [2020-01111]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2020-01111] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council
  3. Forte [2020-01111] Funding Source: Forte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical burnout is associated with impaired cognitive function, particularly in episodic memory, short-term and working memory, executive function, attention and processing speed, and fluency. There were no significant differences in crystallized and visuospatial abilities between patients with burnout and healthy controls.
Clinical burnout has been associated with impaired cognitive functioning; however, inconsistent findings have been reported regarding the pattern and magnitude of cognitive deficits. The aim of this systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis was to assess cognitive function in clinical burnout as compared to healthy controls and identify the pattern and severity of cognitive dysfunction across cognitive domains. We identified 17 studies encompassing 730 patients with clinical burnout and 649 healthy controls. Clinical burnout was associated with impaired performance in episodic memory (g = -0.36, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.15), short-term and working memory (g = -0.36, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), executive function (g = -0.39, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.23), attention and processing speed (g = -0.43, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.29) and fluency (g = -0.53, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.03). There were no differences between patients and controls in crystallized (k = 6 studies) and visuospatial abilities (k = 4). Our findings suggest that clinical burnout is associated with cognitive impairment across multiple cognitive domains. Cognitive dysfunction needs to be considered in the clinical and occupational health management of burnout to optimise rehabilitation and support return-to-work.

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