| Literature DB >> 29848982 |
María Del Mar Molero Jurado1, María Del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes2, José Jesús Gázquez Gázquez Linares3, María Del Mar Simón Márquez4, África Martos Martínez5.
Abstract
Studies have found a higher risk of burnout among employees in the healthcare sector. As such, this study focused on Certified Nursing Aides (CNAs) who have shown a high prevalence of burnout and are therefore considered an especially vulnerable group. The objective of this study was to identify the relationships between some organizational, personal, and sociodemographic factors and burnout. The final study sample included 278 working CNAs with a mean age of 40.88 (SD = 9.41). To compile the data, an ad hoc questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic information. To collect professional and employment information, we used the Brief Emotional Intelligence Inventory for Adults, the Brief Questionnaire on Perceived Social Support, and the General Self-Efficacy Scale. The results showed that Burnout Syndrome is significantly and negatively related to all the emotional intelligence factors, self-efficacy, and perceived social support. The risk of burnout is higher in younger persons and in permanently employed professionals. General self-efficacy and stress management act as protective factors against the likelihood of burnout. This study suggests that organizations should urge coaching and transformational leadership training programs to promote the wellbeing and organizational commitment of workers.Entities:
Keywords: burnout; nursing; protective factors; risks
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29848982 PMCID: PMC6025175 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Correlations between burnout and emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and social support variables.
| EQ-i-20M | EAG | CASPE | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrapersonal | Interpersonal | Stress Management | Adaptability | Mood | Self-Efficacy | Social Support | ||
| CBB | Burnout | −0.26 *** | −0.29 *** | −0.32 *** | −0.34 *** | −0.41 *** | −0.37 *** | −0.20 ** |
| EQ-i-20M | Intrapersonal | 1 | 0.58 *** | 0.13 * | 0.54 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.43 *** |
| Interpersonal | 1 | 0.11 | 0.68 *** | 0.55 *** | 0.55 *** | 0.51 *** | ||
| Stress management | 1 | 0.15 ** | 0.22 *** | 0.16 ** | 0.08 | |||
| Adaptability | 1 | 0.69 *** | 0.70 *** | 0.44 *** | ||||
| Mood | 1 | 0.66 *** | 0.43 *** | |||||
| EAG | Self-efficacy | 1 | 0.45 *** | |||||
Note: * The correlation is significant at 0.05; ** The correlation is significant at 0.01; *** The correlation is significant at 0.001.
Results derived from the logistic regression for probability of burnout.
| Variables | β | S.E. | Wald | df | Sig. | Exp(β) | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.064 | 0.023 | 7.692 | 1 | 0.006 | 0.938 | 0.897–0.981 |
| Employment situation (Permanent) | 1.137 | 0.404 | 7.899 | 1 | 0.005 | 3.116 | 1.411–6.885 |
| Users attended to | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.027 | 1 | 0.870 | 1.001 | 0.992–1.009 |
| General self-efficacy | −0.123 | 0.056 | 4.838 | 1 | 0.028 | 0.884 | 0.792–0.987 |
| Perceived social support | 0.038 | 0.071 | 0.286 | 1 | 0.593 | 1.038 | 0.904–1.192 |
| Intrapersonal | −0.132 | 0.081 | 2.669 | 1 | 0.102 | 0.876 | 0.748–1.027 |
| Interpersonal | −0.036 | 0.138 | 0.066 | 1 | 0.797 | 0.965 | 0.736–1.265 |
| Stress management | −0.275 | 0.110 | 6.259 | 1 | 0.012 | 0.759 | 0.612–0.942 |
| Adaptability | 0.280 | 0.171 | 2.666 | 1 | 0.103 | 1.323 | 0.945–1.851 |
| Mood | −0.215 | 0.130 | 2.746 | 1 | 0.097 | 0.807 | 0.626–1.040 |
| Constant | 2.672 | 1.798 | 2.210 | 1 | 0.137 | 14.474 |
Figure 1Regression and classification tree burnout.