4.6 Article

Job stress and burnout in hospital employees: comparisons of different medical professions in a regional hospital in Taiwan

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004185

关键词

MENTAL HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; SOCIAL MEDICINE

资金

  1. Sin-Lau Christian Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan [SLH101-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To explore the prevalence and associated factors of burnout among five different medical professions in a regional teaching hospital. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Hospital-based survey. Participants A total of 1329 medical professionals were recruited in a regional hospital with a response rate of 89%. These voluntary participants included 101 physicians, 68 physician assistants, 570 nurses, 216 medical technicians and 374 administrative staff. Primary and secondary outcome measures Demographic data included gender, age, level of education and marital status, and work situations, such as position, work hours and work shifts, were obtained from an electronic questionnaire. Job strain and burnout were measured by two validated questionnaires, the Chinese version of the Job Content Questionnaire and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Results Among the five medical professions, the prevalence of high work-related burnout from highest to lowest was nurses (66%), physician assistants (61.8%), physicians (38.6%), administrative staff (36.1%) and medical technicians (31.9%), respectively. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that job strain, overcommitment and low social support explained the most variance (32.6%) of burnout. Conclusions Physician assistant is an emerging high burnout group; its severity is similar to that of nurses and far more than that of physicians, administrative staff and medical technicians. These findings may contribute to the development of feasible strategies to reduce the stress which results in the burnout currently plaguing most hospitals in Taiwan.

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