4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Balint groups as a means to increase job satisfaction and prevent burnout among general practitioners

期刊

ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 138-145

出版社

ANNALS FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.1370/afm.813

关键词

balint group; physician-patient relationship; work environment; job satisfaction; burnout; patient-centered care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE General practitioners (GPs) occupy a central position in health care and often have demanding working situations. This corps shows signs of exhaustion, and many consider quitting their job or plan to retire early. It is therefore urgent to find ways of improving GP's satisfaction with their work. One approach might be Balint group participation. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' experience of participating in Balint groups and its influence on their work life. METHODS We conducted a descriptive, qualitative study. Nine GPs who had participated in Balint groups for 3 to 15 years were interviewed. A phenomenologic analysis was carried out to describe the phenomenon of Balint group participation. RESULTS The GPs perceived that their Balint group participation influenced their work life. Analyses revealed several interrelating themes: competence, professional identity, and a sense of security, which increased through parallel processes, creating a base of endurance and satisfaction, thus enabling the GPs to rediscover the joy of being a physician. CONCLUSIONS The GPs in this study described their Balint group participation as beneficial and essential to their work life as physicians in several ways. It seemed to increase their competence in patient encounters and enabled them to endure in their job and find joy and challenge in their relationships with patients. Balint groups might thus help GPs handle a demanding work life and prevent burnout. These groups might not suit all GPs, however, and additional ways to reduce stress and increase job satisfaction should be offered.

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