OBJECTIVE: International research shows that oncology staff suffers more from burnout than other healthcare professionals. Burnout is common among oncologists. The prevalence of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment appears to be significantly higher among physicians. Detecting burnout is highly relevant, because it affects the personal well-being and quality of life of the healthcare professional. A national study on the prevalence of burnout in oncology was never conducted in Flanders (Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). METHODS: The Cédric Hèle institute spread anonymous questionnaires among 923 healthcare workers in oncology (physicians, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and specialist-nurses) in Flanders. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part contained questions concerning demographic and job features. The second part included the Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty subjects participated in the survey (response rate of 59.5%). Of the medical oncologists, 51.2% suffered from emotional exhaustion, 31.8% from depersonalization, and 6.8% from a lack of personal accomplishment. Multivariate analysis of variance suggested a significantly elevated level of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in oncologists compared with other professionals. Logistic regression indicated that the following variables have predictive value on risk of burnout: gender, profession, and combining work in a university hospital with work in a private hospital. CONCLUSION: The CHi research showed a significantly increased level of burnout-components in professionals working in oncology, especially in medical oncologists. These results should have an impact on the daily clinic of oncology, and could be guidance for further research.
OBJECTIVE: International research shows that oncology staff suffers more from burnout than other healthcare professionals. Burnout is common among oncologists. The prevalence of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment appears to be significantly higher among physicians. Detecting burnout is highly relevant, because it affects the personal well-being and quality of life of the healthcare professional. A national study on the prevalence of burnout in oncology was never conducted in Flanders (Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). METHODS: The Cédric Hèle institute spread anonymous questionnaires among 923 healthcare workers in oncology (physicians, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and specialist-nurses) in Flanders. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part contained questions concerning demographic and job features. The second part included the Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty subjects participated in the survey (response rate of 59.5%). Of the medical oncologists, 51.2% suffered from emotional exhaustion, 31.8% from depersonalization, and 6.8% from a lack of personal accomplishment. Multivariate analysis of variance suggested a significantly elevated level of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in oncologists compared with other professionals. Logistic regression indicated that the following variables have predictive value on risk of burnout: gender, profession, and combining work in a university hospital with work in a private hospital. CONCLUSION: The CHi research showed a significantly increased level of burnout-components in professionals working in oncology, especially in medical oncologists. These results should have an impact on the daily clinic of oncology, and could be guidance for further research.
Authors: Lisa S Rotenstein; Matthew Torre; Marco A Ramos; Rachael C Rosales; Constance Guille; Srijan Sen; Douglas A Mata Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elyse R Park; Jan E Mutchler; Giselle Perez; Roberta E Goldman; Halsey Niles; Vivian Haime; Cheyenne Fox Tree-McGrath; Mai See Yang; Daniel Woolridge; July Suarez; Karen Donelan; William F Pirl Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Emilia I De la Fuente-Solana; Gustavo R Cañadas; Lucia Ramirez-Baena; Jose L Gómez-Urquiza; Tania Ariza; Guillermo A Cañadas-De la Fuente Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ovidiu Popa-Velea; Alexandra Ioana Mihăilescu; Liliana Veronica Diaconescu; Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe; Adela Magdalena Ciobanu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rebecca H Lehto; Carrie Heeter; Jeffrey Forman; Tait Shanafelt; Arif Kamal; Patrick Miller; Michael Paletta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 3.390