Daniel Marchalik1, Jacob Brems2, Ariel Rodriguez3, John H Lynch2, Jamie Padmore4, Lambros Stamatakis2, Ross Krasnow2. 1. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Department of Urology, Washington, DC; MedStar Health, Office of Physician Well-being, Columbia, MD. Electronic address: Daniel.Marchalik@medstar.net. 2. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Department of Urology, Washington, DC. 3. Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 4. MedStar Health, Office of Physician Well-being, Columbia, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of burnout in urology trainees and examine the influence of personal, programmatic, and institutional factors on burnout rates. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an anonymous survey of burnout in urology residents across the United States using a 50-question REDCap-based electronic questionnaire in May of 2018. The survey included demographic questions, an inventory of stress-reduction techniques and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Univariate analysis and multinomial logistic regression models were used to assess associations between individual, program, and organizational factors and resident burnout. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 20.9%. Individual factors such as age, gender, exercise, and meditation were not associated with burnout while reading for relaxation (P = .022) and spending time with family (P = .025) were protective against burnout. Residents working >80 hours vs 60-80 hours and <60 hours per week were more likely to exhibit burnout (77.6% vs 66.1% vs 47.1%, respectively, P = .044). Institutional factors such as structured mentorship programs (P = .019) and access to mental health services (P <.001) were associated with decreased burnout. On multivariable analysis, unavailable or difficult-to-access mental health services were associated with increased odds of burnout (OR 5.38, 95%CI 2.20-13.16, P <.001, and OR 2.33, 95%CI 1.07-5.07, P = .034, respectively). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of burnout in urology trainees is high. Institutional factors such as formal mentorship and access to mental health services may play an important role in resident well-being.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of burnout in urology trainees and examine the influence of personal, programmatic, and institutional factors on burnout rates. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an anonymous survey of burnout in urology residents across the United States using a 50-question REDCap-based electronic questionnaire in May of 2018. The survey included demographic questions, an inventory of stress-reduction techniques and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Univariate analysis and multinomial logistic regression models were used to assess associations between individual, program, and organizational factors and resident burnout. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 20.9%. Individual factors such as age, gender, exercise, and meditation were not associated with burnout while reading for relaxation (P = .022) and spending time with family (P = .025) were protective against burnout. Residents working >80 hours vs 60-80 hours and <60 hours per week were more likely to exhibit burnout (77.6% vs 66.1% vs 47.1%, respectively, P = .044). Institutional factors such as structured mentorship programs (P = .019) and access to mental health services (P <.001) were associated with decreased burnout. On multivariable analysis, unavailable or difficult-to-access mental health services were associated with increased odds of burnout (OR 5.38, 95%CI 2.20-13.16, P <.001, and OR 2.33, 95%CI 1.07-5.07, P = .034, respectively). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of burnout in urology trainees is high. Institutional factors such as formal mentorship and access to mental health services may play an important role in resident well-being.
Authors: Nikitha K Menon; Tait D Shanafelt; Christine A Sinsky; Mark Linzer; Lindsey Carlasare; Keri J S Brady; Martin J Stillman; Mickey T Trockel Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Katherine J Holzer; Sunny S Lou; Charles W Goss; Jaime Strickland; Bradley A Evanoff; Jennifer G Duncan; Thomas Kannampallil Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Magdalena Zgliczyńska; Stanisław Zgliczyński; Michał Ciebiera; Katarzyna Kosińska-Kaczyńska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lauren A Gaston-Hawkins; Francisco A Solorio; Grace F Chao; Carmen Renee' Green Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 5.285