Margae Knox1, Rachel Willard-Grace2, Beatrice Huang2, Kevin Grumbach2. 1. Center for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Margae.Knox@ucsf.edu. 2. Center for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare. OBJECTIVE: To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009). KEY RESULTS: Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare. OBJECTIVE: To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009). KEY RESULTS: Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.
Entities:
Keywords:
burnout; health services research; measurement
Authors: E S Williams; T R Konrad; M Linzer; J McMurray; D E Pathman; M Gerrity; M D Schwartz; W E Scheckler; J Van Kirk; E Rhodes; J Douglas Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Omar Hasan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: James C Puffer; H Clifton Knight; Thomas R O'Neill; Monee Rassolian; Andrew W Bazemore; Lars E Peterson; Elizabeth G Baxley Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Sonja Boone; Litjen Tan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Wayne Sotile; Daniel Satele; Colin P West; Jeff Sloan; Michael R Oreskovich Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-10-08
Authors: Mark Linzer; Sara Poplau; Stewart Babbott; Tracie Collins; Laura Guzman-Corrales; Jeremiah Menk; Mary Lou Murphy; Kay Ovington Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christian D Helfrich; Emily D Dolan; Joseph Simonetti; Robert J Reid; Sandra Joos; Bonnie J Wakefield; Gordon Schectman; Richard Stark; Stephan D Fihn; Henry B Harvey; Karin Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sarah E Lewis; Robert S Nocon; Hui Tang; Seo Young Park; Anusha M Vable; Lawrence P Casalino; Elbert S Huang; Michael T Quinn; Deborah L Burnet; Wm Thomas Summerfelt; Jonathan M Birnberg; Marshall H Chin Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-01-09
Authors: Mark Linzer; Linda Baier Manwell; Eric S Williams; James A Bobula; Roger L Brown; Anita B Varkey; Bernice Man; Julia E McMurray; Ann Maguire; Barbara Horner-Ibler; Mark D Schwartz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mia Djulbegovic; Shradha A Kulkarni; Katherine L Chen; Maureen Canavan; Marney A White; W Cameron McGuire; Savan Shan; Revati Reddy; Shannon Kay; Liana Fraenkel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrew Telzak; Earle C Chambers; Damara Gutnick; Anna Flattau; Joan Chaya; Kathleen McAuliff; Bruce Rapkin Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Sukyung Chung; Ellis C Dillon; Amy E Meehan; Robert Nordgren; Dominick L Frosch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 5.128