| Literature DB >> 35509000 |
Magdalena K Wekenborg1,2, LaBarron K Hill3, Pia Grabbe4, Julian F Thayer5, Clemens Kirschbaum6, Susan Lindenlaub6, Ralf Arne Wittling7, Bernadette von Dawans8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to investigate the link between burnout symptoms and prosocial behaviour, as well as the role of acute stress and vagally-mediated heart rate variability (vmHRV) on this association.Entities:
Keywords: Acute stress; Burnout; Cynicism; Heart rate variability; Prosocial behaviour
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35509000 PMCID: PMC9069827 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13333-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Fig. 1Flowchart of the experimental procedure for target participants. HR = heart rate; TSST-G = Trier Social Stress Test for Groups; VAS = visual analogue scale
Demographic and health characteristics (N = 70)
| Characteristics | Control ( | TSST-G ( | Group comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics, | 40.34 (10.76) | 36.63 (11.85) | |
| Age, y | |||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.64 (3.84) | 24.63 (4.08) | |
| Health-related factors, | |||
| Smokers | 7 (20.0) | 5 (14.3) | |
| Daily alcohol consumption | 9 (25.7) | 6 (17.1) | |
| MBI total score, | 2.32 (1.00) | 2.12 (0.96) | |
| Emotional exhaustion | 2.71 (1.23) | 2.68 (1.47) | |
| Cynicism | 2.19 (1.26) | 1.73 (1.13) | |
| Reduced personal accomplishment | 1.94 (1.15) | 1.76 (1.07) | |
| PHQ-9, | 7.09 (4.18) | 7.11 (4.54) | |
| Salivary cortisol (baseline) | 4.89 (3.20) | 6.22 (7.89) | |
| Mean VAS (baseline) | 2.09 (1.01) | 2.54 (1.50) | |
MBI total score Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey total score, mHR mean heart rate, PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire, depression sum-score, Mean VAS mean value of six visual analogue scales. None of the group comparisons were significant
Partial correlations between burnout symptoms, prosocial behaviour data, and vagally-mediated HRV at baseline and during the social decision making paradigm adjusted for age and depressive symptoms (N = 70)
| MBI total score | MBI EE | MBI CY | MBI PEr | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBI total score | ||||||||
| MBI EE | 0.77** | < .001 | ||||||
| MBI CY | 0.75** | < .001 | 0.44** | < .001 | ||||
| MBI PEr | 0.64** | < .001 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.34* | < 0.01 | ||
| Basal vmHRV | -0.14 | 0.25 | -0.06 | 0.64 | -0.18 | 0.14 | -0.08 | 0.52 |
| VmHRV task | -0.24 | 0.05 | -0.09 | 0.49 | -0.30* | 0.01 | -0.15 | 0.22 |
| Prosocial index | -0.19 | 0.13 | -0.06 | 0.62 | -0.26* | 0.03 | -0.15 | 0.23 |
| Trust | -0.02 | 0.90 | 0.03 | 0.80 | -0.11 | 0.39 | -0.02 | 0.85 |
| Trustworthiness | -0.18 | 0.14 | -0.11 | 0.40 | -0.19 | 0.12 | -0.12 | 0.34 |
| Sharing | -0.30* | 0.01 | -0.16 | 0.19 | -0.36* | < 0.01 | -0.21 | 0.09 |
| Non-social risk score | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.25 |
MBI total score = Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey total score; MBI EE = emotional exhaustion sub-dimension; MBI CY = Maslach Burnout Inventory- General Survey cynicism sub-dimension; MBI PEr = reduced professional efficacy sub-dimension; Basal vmHRV = root mean square of successive difference between heart beats at seated baseline; vmHRV task = root mean square of successive difference between heart beats during the social decision making paradigm. * for p < .05; ** for p < .001
Moderation model of cynicism and acute stress predicting the prosocial index (N = 70)
| Estimates | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.12 | 0.05 | .42 |
| MBI CY | -1.24 | 0.57 | -2.39 | -0.09 | .04* |
| Acute stress | -3.14 | 1.75 | -6.63 | 0.35 | .08 |
| MBI CY × acute stress | 0.27 | 0.77 | -1.27 | 1.81 | .73 |
MBI CY Maslach Burnout Inventory- General Survey cynicism sub-score, CI confidence interval. * for p < .05; ** for p < .001
Fig. 2Mediation model of the association between burnout symptoms and the prosocial index through vmHRV during social interaction adjusted for age and depressive symptoms. CY = Maslach Burnout Inventory, cynicism sub-dimension; ProSo = prosocial index; vmHRV = vagally-mediated heart rate variability during social decision paradigm