| Literature DB >> 35682109 |
Maciej Załuski1, Marta Makara-Studzińska1.
Abstract
According to scientific research, emergency call-takers and dispatchers (ECD) are particularly vulnerable to burnout syndrome. It can be observed that this occupation is predominantly performed by women. Moreover, the studies on occupational burnout indicate its different causes depending on employees' gender. The aim of this research was to apply a Person-Oriented approach in order to examine the relationships between particular risk factors, the level of burnout, and its health consequences in a group of women. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted on 296 women (call-takers and dispatchers) from public-safety answering points in Poland. The Link Burnout Questionnaire and a sociodemographic questionnaire were used to gather information. The method of latent profile analysis (LPA) was employed in the study. The study revealed burnout patterns without full symptoms as well as four different burnout profiles. The findings partially confirmed initial assumptions about correlations between the length of service as ECD, marital status, motherhood, burnout symptoms, and body mass index (BMI). Sociodemographic variables differentiated the examined women in terms of their emotional exhaustion and BMI. Three groups of women at risk of burnout and overweight were identified: those with the shortest job experience, those with the longest job experience, and an intermediate group. In each of these groups, symptoms indicating a possible risk of burnout-related health issues could be observed. The application of a Person-Oriented approach allowed for assessing possible correlations between burnout risk factors, its symptoms, and health consequences.Entities:
Keywords: Person-Oriented approach; emergency call-taker and dispatcher; fertility; latent profile analysis; marital status; occupational burnout; seniority; woman
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682109 PMCID: PMC9180705 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116525
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Characteristics of the variables applied in the study. N = 296.
|
|
|
| Length of service as ECD | 4.3 ± 2.6 |
| PE | 21.1 ± 3.6 |
| RD | 20.2 ± 4.0 |
| PI | 12.3 ± 4.1 |
| DI | 18.5 ± 3.4 |
| BMI | 23.8 ± 4.2 |
|
|
|
| Married | 69.5 |
| Unmarried | 30.5 |
| Number of children at home | |
| 0 | 60.6 |
| 1 | 19.0 |
| 2 | 16.5 |
| 3 | 3.2 |
| 4 | 0.3 |
| 5 | 0.3 |
Note: Variables were expressed as: M = mean ± SD (standard deviation), PE—psychophysical exhaustion, RD—relation deterioration, PI—professional inefficacy, DI—disappointment; BMI—body mass index.
Comparing model fit for different classes profiles in studied models.
| Classes | AIC | BICa | BLMRT ( | Entropy | Latent Class Prob. [Range] | Class Prevalence [Range] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unconstrained modelss | ||||||
| 1 | 9315.57 | 9329.59 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | 9260.06 | 9288.61 | 0.575 | [0.8–0.92] | [0.39–0.61] | |
| 3 | 9239.02 | 9282.10 | 0.761 | [0.87–0.92] | [0.18–0.48] | |
| 4 | 9197.48 | 9255.10 | 0.835 | [0.86–0.99] | [0.08–0.54] | |
| 5 | 9201.40 | 9273.55 | 0.855 | [0.89–0.94] | [0.07–0.41] | |
| Constrained modelss | ||||||
| 1 | 9315.57 | 9329.59 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | 9304.84 | 9322.48 | 0.686 | [0.91–0.91] | [0.49–0.51] | |
| 3 | 9278.02 | 9299.31 | 0.795 | [0.9–0.96] | [0.02–0.5] | |
| 4 | 9268.63 | 9293.55 | 0.81 | [0.75–0.96] | [0.02–0.48] | |
| 5 | 9269.58 | 9298.13 | 0.754 | [0.71–0.88] | [0.01–0.44] | |
Legend: AIC—Akaike Information Criterion, BIC—sample size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion, BLRT(p)—bootstrapped Lo-Mendell-Rubin test. Lower AIC and BICa values indicate better fitting models. Significant p-values for the BLRT(p) indicate that the model is a better fit than a model which is 1 class lower. Entropy is a measure of how accurate a model is at classifying people into latent profiles. This is a number ranging from 0 to 1 and the value of 1 indicates the highest confidence. Latent class probabilities [range] provide a range (i.e., minimum and maximum) of probabilities of assigning each observation to a particular class. The higher the lower value of the range, the greater the likelihood of assigning observations to particular classes. Class prevalence [range]—the percentage of observations in the smallest and largest class. It should be higher than 0.05. In our case, the smallest class in the unconstrained models contains 8% of the observations for the whole group, so it is acceptable.
Descriptive statistics of variables classes and significance differences between variables by classes. N = 296.
| Parameter | Classes |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 (N = 38) | Class 2 (N = 161) | Class 3 (N = 24) | Class 4 (N = 73) | |||
| BMI | mean ± SD | 22 ± 1.85 | 25.6 ± 4.93 | 23.2 ± 3.32 | 20.8 ± 1.68 | |
| median | 21.85 | 25 | 22.9 | 20.55 | ||
| quartiles | 20.62–22.5 | 22.09–28.52 | 20.75–25.13 | 19.59–22.27 | C2 > C3,C1 > C4 | |
| The length of service | mean ± SD | 0.69 ± 0.41 | 5.36 ± 2.15 | 2.59 ± 1.89 | 4.37 ± 2.06 | |
| median | 0.55 | 5 | 2.25 | 4 | ||
| quartiles | 0.3–1 | 4–7 | 1–3.62 | 3–6 | C2 > C4 > C3 > C1 | |
| PE | mean ± SD | 22.89 ± 4.08 | 20.29 ± 3.19 | 25.12 ± 2.29 | 20.49 ± 3.34 | |
| median | 23 | 21 | 25 | 21 | ||
| quartiles | 21–25.75 | 18–22 | 23.75–26.25 | 19–22 | C3 > C1 > C4,C2 | |
| RD | mean ± SD | 20.42 ± 4.5 | 20.04 ± 4.07 | 24.17 ± 3.17 | 19.16 ± 3.02 | |
| median | 20 | 20 | 24 | 19 | ||
| quartiles | 18–23 | 18–23 | 22–26.5 | 17–21 | C3 > C1,C2,C4 | |
| PI | mean ± SD | 12.55 ± 3.06 | 12.17 ± 3.31 | 12.08 ± 2.54 | 12.79 ± 1.57 | |
| median | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | ||
| quartiles | 11–14 | 11–13 | 11.75–12 | 11–12 | ||
| DE | mean ± SD | 19.82 ± 2.02 | 18.29 ± 4.09 | 17.04 ± 2.79 | 18.79 ± 2.05 | |
| median | 20 | 18 | 17 | 19 | ||
| quartiles | 18.25–21 | 15–21 | 15–19 | 17–20 | C1 > C2,C3 | |
| Marital status | No | 27 (71.05%) | 83 (51.55%) | 13 (54.17%) | 45 (61.64%) | |
| Yes | 11 (28.95%) | 78 (48.45%) | 11 (45.83%) | 28 (38.36%) | ||
| Number of | 0 | 30 (78.95%) | 90 (55.90%) | 14 (58.33%) | 46 (63.01%) | |
| 1 | 3 (7.89%) | 38 (23.60%) | 5 (20.83%) | 12 (16.44%) | ||
| 2 | 3 (7.89%) | 28 (17.39%) | 3 (12.50%) | 14 (19.18%) | ||
| 3 | 1 (2.63%) | 4 (2.48%) | 2 (8.33%) | 1 (1.37%) | ||
| 4 | 1 (2.63%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | ||
| 5 | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.62%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | ||
Legend: PE—psychophysical exhaustion, RD—relation deterioration, PI—professional inefficacy, DI—disappointment, BMI—body mass index. Kruskal–Wallis test + post-hoc analysis (Dunn–Bonferroni test) for quantitative variables, Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for qualitative variables; * Statistically significant (p < 0.05).