| Literature DB >> 35729648 |
Robert Pohl1, Julia Botscharow2, Irina Böckelmann2, Beatrice Thielmann2.
Abstract
The aim of this review is to systematically review studies on work-related stress that may affect the mental health of veterinarians. Studies have indicated a high prevalence of various risk factors for mental disorders among practicing veterinarians. In addition to a high risk of suicide, there is increasing evidence of burnout and depression. A scoping review was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubPsych and PSYNDEX databases. Twenty-one studies (plus seven studies with nonstandardized questionnaires) published between 2000 and 2021 were found that presented data on the effect of workload on the mental wellbeing of veterinarians. All of the included studies indicate a high prevalence of psychological stressors in veterinary practice. The risks of burnout, anxiety and depressive disorders are higher in this occupational group than in the general population and other occupational groups. Subjectively, female veterinarians perceive their psychological workload to be higher than that of their male counterparts. Working hours and ethical dilemmas stand out as major sources of stress. There is a need to improve overall psychological wellbeing of veterinarians. Organizational support services and developing personal strategies for coping with work-related stress can prove helpful.Entities:
Keywords: Anxiety; Depression; Mental wellbeing; Psychological stress; Scoping review; Stress; Suicide; Veterinarians; Workload
Year: 2022 PMID: 35729648 PMCID: PMC9209636 DOI: 10.1186/s13620-022-00220-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ir Vet J ISSN: 0368-0762 Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Shows the methodical procedure, including the search strategy, in a flow diagram
Listing of the studies found according to full text search, indicating the standardised and non-standardised questionnaires, the EPHPP ranking and a selection of main results
| First author, year of publication and location | EPHPP raking | Used questionnaire | Sample and study type | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bartram et al. 2009, UK [ | weak | The hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), Three questions on suicidal ideation derived from the second National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity, The Warwick-Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale (WEMWBS), The Health and Safety Executive management standards indicator tool (HSE MSIT), Subscales of the Survey Work-home Interaction Nijmegen (SWING), A series of 27 original items specifically focusing on potential sources of stress in the veterinary profession (a domain of 9 items referred to clinical work and was only completed by respondents to whom this domain was relevant, An open question inviting respondents to identify in free text up to three main sources of pleasure and/or satisfaction in practice | A sample consisting of 1796 practicing veterinary surgeons (50% male, 50% female) in a cross-sectional study | HADS-A (total mean): 7.9 (± 4.1); non-case (0–7%): 48.8; possible case (8–10%): 25.3; probable case (≥ 11): 26.3% HADS-D (total mean): 4.6 (± 3.4); anxiety subscale non-case (0–7%): 80.6; anxiety subscale possible case (8–10%): 13.6; anxiety subscale probable case (≥ 11): 5.8% HADS-T (total mean): 12.6 (± 6.8) Twelve-month prevalence of suicidal ideation: life was not worth living (23.0%; death wishes (15.0%); suicidal thoughts (21.3%); any suicidal ideation (29.4%) WEMBS (mean score): 48.85 (± 9.06); The mean scores for veterinary surgeons working in university-based non-clinical university-based clinical roles vs. working in small animal practice after adjusting for age and gender (university-non-clinical: β = 3.50, 95% CI: 0.37–6.62, HSE MSIT: Total mean (95% CI): demands 2.96 (± 0.70), control 3.47 (± 0.78), managerial support 3.14 (± 0.89), peer support 3.75 (± 0.73), relationships 4.01 (± 0.69), role 4.21 (± 0.63), change 3.22 (± 0.94) WHI_N: total mean: 1.19 (± 0.57) WHI_P: total mean: 0.97 (± 0.56) Contributors to stress: Number of hours (42.9%), making professional mistakes (40.4%), client expectations: (38.0%), administrative and clerical tasks (27.9%) Sources of satisfaction: good clinical outcomes (41.5%), relationships with colleagues (33.7%), intellectual challenge/learning (32.4%) |
| Best et al. 2020, Canada [ | weak | HADS, MBI-Human Services Scale (MBI-HSS), Professional Quality of Life (version 5) (ProQOL), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) | A sample consisting of 412 veterinary (Nearly 70% of participants identified as female and 30.5% as male) in a cross-sectional study | HADS-A (total mean): 8.8 (± 4.3); non-case (0–7%): 38.7; possible case (8–10%): 28.7%; probable case (≥ 11): 32.6% HADS-D (total mean): 5.2 (± 3.9); non-case (0–7%): 75.4%; possible case (8–10%): 15.6%; probable case (≥ 11): 9.0% Comorbidity defined as both anxiety and depression subscales having scores ≥ 11: 7.1% (4.8–10.0 CI) Approximately 1/3 of participants were classified as probable cases of anxiety based on a HADS-A score ≥ 11, and 9% of participants were classified as probable cases of depression based on a HADS-D score of ≥ 11. Furthermore. Approximately 7% were classified as having comorbid anxiety and depression. Female participants tended to have higher anxiety and depression scores and percentage probable caseness than males MBI-HSS: 36.9% of participants in this survey could be classified as experiencing burnout (95% CI: 32.1% to 42.0%). Female participants (37.8%) tended to have a higher proportion experiencing burnout (95% CI: 31.8% to 44.0%) than male participants (32.7%, 95% CI: 24.2% to 42.2%) ProQOL: Female participants tended to have higher scores in Burnout (44.8% vs. 38.9%) and Secondary Traumatic Stress (72.9% vs. 60.7%), and were more likely to be within the “high” category for these components of compassion fatigue. Compassion Satisfaction: male 36.3% vs. female 31.4%) CD-RISC: The mean CD-RISC score ( |
| Cevizci et al. 2014, Turkey [ | weak | Swedish Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (DCSQ), self-reported physical and mental health problems by veterinary surgeons | A sample consisting of 223 veterinary (71,7% male, 28.3% female) in a cross-sectional study | DCSQ (mean values between vets in civil servant vs. vets in private sector employee): work load 9.65 (± 1.73) vs 9.26 (± 1.94)*, work control 10.73 (± 2.94) vs. 9.95 (± 2.51)*, skill use 7.12 (± 1.92) vs. 7.02 (± 1.68)*, decision latitude 3.61 (± 1.84) vs. 2.94 (± 1.42)**, social support 11.46 (± 3.58) vs. 11.12 (± 4.19)*. * Reported mental health problems by veterinary surgeons: Unresponded (21.4%), stress (19.7%), short temper (15.4%), Depression (12.8%), Burnout (12.0%), Unhappiness/restlessness (10.3%), Chronic fatigue/insomnia (7.7%), Attention deficit (0.9%) |
| Crane et al. 2015, Australia [ | weak | 21-item Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21), Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS), Brief Resilience Scale, Stressor events were identified via three focus groups held with 11 veterinarians (9-point scale), 24-item version of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS-Reduced) | A sample consisting of 540 veterinary (64.2% female) in a cross-sectional study | inability to pay ( The perfectionism was positively related to stress ( Psychological resilience: perceived resilience ( |
| Dawson und Thompson 2017, UK [ | weak | NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), MBI and Job Stress Survey (JSS) | A sample consisting of 363 veterinary (139 males and 220 females, 4 did not specify sex) in a cross-sectional study | H1: Veterinarians' experiences of occupational stress will be explained more through personality factors than environmental factors: The personality can explain 7.3% (R2 = 0.073) of the variance in occupational stress. The final model indicates that personality has a significant effect on occupational stress (F[1, 309] = 24.411, H2: The personality traits of neuroticism and conscientiousness will be more related to occupational stress than the traits of extraversion, openness, and agreeableness: Neuroticism can explain 7.3% (R2 = 0.073) of the variance in occupational stress. The final model indicates that neuroticism is a significant predictor of occupational stress (F[1, 309] = 24.411, A1: To establish the key facets within neuroticism and conscientiousness that most contribute to stress: 6.5% of the variance in occupational stress can be attributed to the personality component depression and another 2.4% to anger and hostility, two of the five facets of neuroticism. The final model shows that both depression and anger hostility have a significant effect on OS (F[2, 308] = 15.027, A2: To explore demographic factors (such as years qualified and type of practice) as potential mediators and/or moderators of any relationships found: Years qualified (YO) and anger hostility were significant predictors of occupational stress (F[6, 302] = 7.531, YQ moderated the EE and DP relationships with respect to OS, resulting in weaker correlations (final model [YQ, EE]: F[2, 306] = 64.713, |
| Dow et al. 2019, Australia [ | weak | Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), Compassion Fatigue Short Scale (CFSS), and items designed by the researchers specifically for the study (personal grief when the life of a client's animal ends and their physical and mental wellbeing) | A sample consisting of 103 veterinary (63,1% female) in a cross-sectional study | Mental/physical health was affected by euthanasia (40.2% (strongly agree + agree)) CFSS: There was a statistically significant association between total score on the CFSS and hours worked when adjusting for age (global K10: There was a statistically significant association between psychological distress and age when marital status and animal type were considered (global There was a statistically significant association between psychological distress and marital status when age and animal type were considered (global There was a statistically significant association between psychological distress and animal type when age and marital status were considered (global |
| Fritschi et al. 2009, Australia [ | weak | General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), Warr's work-related affect scales, self-reported questions | A sample consisting of 2125 veterinary (1217 male, 908 female) in a cross-sectional study | psychological health associated with demographic and practice factors: GHQ score > 2: Gender ( Mean Anxiety/Contentment score: Gender ( Mean Depression/Enthusiasm score: Gender ( GHQ Wald coefficient (95% CI): Gender: female 1.13 (0.89, 1.44), male 1.0; Practice type: non-animal 1.40 (0.77, 2.56), mixed 1.12 (0.87, 1.43), large 1.06, (0.78, 1.45), small 1.0; Working hours (per hour): 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) Anxiety/Contentment Beta (95% CI), adjusted R2 0.479: Gender: male (Baseline), female − 0.12 (− 0.198, − 0.06); Practice type: non-animal 0.09 (− 0.07, 0.24), mixed 0.04 (− 0.02, 0.11), large 0.01 (− 0.07, 0.09), small (Baseline); working hours − 0.01 (− 0.01, − 0.00) Depression/Enthusiasm Beta (95% CI), adjusted R2 0.566: Gender: female 0.01 (− 0.05, 0.07), male (Baseline); Practice type: non-animal 0.10 (− 0.04, 0.23), large − 0.03 (− 0.10, 0.04), mixed 0.01 (− 0.05, 0.06), small (Baseline); working hours − 0.00 (− 0.01, − 0.00) |
| Hansez et al. 2008, Belgium [ | weak | Positive and Negative Occupational Stress Inventory (PNOSI), SWING, subscale of emotional exhaustion | A sample consisting of 216 veterinary (75,5% male, 24,5% female) in a cross-sectional study | job engagement: mean 54.06 (± 8.89); Level low 3.7%, Level medium 71.3%, Level high 24.2%; Type of activity: small animals 56.55 (± 8.95), mixed 53.41 (± 8.91), bovine 52.09 (± 8.49) job strain: mean 52.19 (± 8.15); Level low 5.6%, Level medium 79.2%, Level high 14.8%; Type of activity: mixed 54.24 (± 6.97), bovine 53.14 (± 8.20) small animals 50.64 (± 8.17) burnout: mean 22.22 (± 9.47); level low 31%, Level medium 51.9%, Level high 14.4%; Type of activity: bovine 24.14 (± 10), mixed 22.79 (± 9.09), small animals 20.93 (± 9.20) |
| Harling et al. 2007, Germany [ | weak | Frequency-quantity index, CAGE-Test, Demoralization Scale, Psychosocial Stress Scale | A sample consisting of 1131 veterinary (male 47,5%, female 52,5%) in a cross-sectional study | Psychosocial stress: burdened (19.1%), mean: 1.4 more hours, more stress ( mean demoralization scale: 1.2; employed more demoralized than self-employed ( |
| Hatch et al. 2011, Austria [ | weak | K10, DASS, CBI | A sample consisting of 1947 veterinary (51.4% male, 48.6% female) in a cross-sectional study | K10 scores: all respondents ( DASS-depression scores: all respondents ( DASS-anxiety scores: all respondents ( DASS- stress: all respondents ( Burnout CBI: reference data: personal (22.2%, all respondents: personal (37%), work (35.6%), client (24.8%) Logistic Regression more likely highest categories (DASS depression): capital cities, rural cities/town high/very high K10 scores (> 22): Female (OR = 1.6, 95%CI:1.2–2.0) and veterinarians < 10 years high/very high personal burnout scores: Female (OR = 2.3, 95%CI: 1.9–2.9), capital city (OR = 2.55, 95%CI: 1.1–6.1), rural city/town (OR = 1.4, 95%CI: 1.0–1.9) Lower work and client burnout scores (OR < 1): all types of practice/ work other than companion animal practice |
| Kassem et al. 2019, USA [ | weak | Kessler psychological distress scale | A sample consisting of 9522 veterinary (30.8% male, 69.2% female) in a cross-sectional study | negative attitude toward treatment effectiveness: male vs. female OR = 1.79, solo vs. nonsolo OR = 1.60, with vs. without psychological distress OR = 2.11, suicide ideation vs non OR = 1.83 Negative attitude toward social support: males vs females OR = 0.72, solo vs nonsolo OR = 1.23, not belong vs belong veterinary association OR = 1.29, psychological distress vs none OR = 1.55; suicidal ideation vs none OR = 1.55, age 40–59 vs 20–39 = OR = 1.18. small animal practice associated with neg. attitude toward treatment |
| Mair et al. 2021, UK [ | weak | WEMWBS (pre and during covid pandemic) | A sample consisting of 451 veterinary (38.4% males, 61.0% females, 0.6% n.r.) in a cross-sectional study | WEMWBS mean: current survey (during pandemic): 47.17; 2019 survey (pre pandemic): 48.08 cheerful: none of time (0–2%), rarely (2–17%), some of the time (17–60%), often (60–93%), all of the time (93–100%) interested in new things: none of time (0–8%), rarely (8–27%), some of the time (27–57%), often (57–88%), all of the time (88–100%) feeling loved: none of time (0–3%), rarely (3–11%), some of the time (11–48%), often (48–72%), all of the time (72–100%) able to make up my mind about things: none of time (0–1%), rarely (1–9%), some of the time (9–48%), often (48–79%), all of the time (79–100%) confident: none of time (0–2%), rarely (2–21%), some of the time (21–55%), often (55–88%), all of the time (88–100%) close to others: none of time (0–3%), rarely (3–27%), some of the time (27–60%), often (60–90%), all of the time (90–100%) feeling good about myself: none of time (0–5%), rarely (5–19%), some of the time (19–63%), often (63–91%), all of the time (91–100%) thinking clearly: none of time (0–1%), rarely (1–6%), some of the time (6–35%), often (35–82%), all of the time (82–100%) spare energy: none of time (0–7%), rarely (7–46%), some of the time (46–72%), often (72–93%), all of the time (93–100%) dealing with problems well: none of time (0–1%), rarely (1–7%), some of the time (7–45%), often (45–87%), all of the time (87–100%) interested in others: none of time (0–2%), rarely (2–9%), some of the time (9–46%), often (46–86%), all of the time (86–100%) relaxed: none of time (0–10%), rarely (10–41%), some of the time (41–77%), often (77–95%), all of the time (95–100%) being useful: none of time (0–4%), rarely (4–11%), some of the time (11–36%), often (36–69%), all of the time (69–100%) optimistic about future: none of time (0–4%), rarely (4–21%), some of the time (21–62%), often (62–91%), all of the time (91–100%) |
| Mastenbroek et al. 2014, Netherlands [ | weak | Interviews and questionnaire: The Questionnaire Experience and Evaluation of Work (QEEW), Proactive Personality Scale, Groningen Reflection Ability Scale, nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), exhaustion dutch version of MBI | A sample consisting of 860 veterinary (27% males, 73% females) in a cross-sectional study | correlations: workload: work-self conflict 0.463**, physical demands: work-self conflict 0.364**, feedback from work: decision latitude 0.327**, support form colleagues: feedback from work 0.394**, exhaustion: workload .376**, exhaustion: physical demands 0.338**, exhaustion: work-self conflict: 0.557**, exhaustion: decision latitude -0.416**, exhaustion: self-efficacy -0.313** (only over 0.300 and not all) |
| Nett et al. 2015, USA (Puerto Rico) [ | weak | Kessler-6 psychological distress scale, history of depression and mental health treatment, attitudes toward mental illness and mental health treatment, stressors related to veterinary practice, and satisfaction related to practicing veterinary medicine | A sample consisting of 11.627 veterinary (male 31%) in a cross-sectional study | 9% respondents with current serious psychological distress. Since leaving veterinary school, 31% respondents experienced depressive episodes, 17% experienced suicidal ideation, and 1% attempted suicide. Currently, 19% respondents were receiving treatment for a mental health condition. 32% respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that people are sympathetic toward persons with mental illness Reported psychological distress (score ≥ 13): female > male in all categories, previous depressive episodes (31%) > suicidal ideation (17%) > attempted suicide (1%). Among those who had attempted suicide, the median number of attempts was 1.0. Currently receiving treatment: |
| Perret et al. 2020, Canada [ | weak | Davidson Resilience Scale, Perceived Stress Scale, HADS, MBI, ProQOL | A sample consisting of 1.130 veterinary (male 21.6%, female 78.4%) in a cross-sectional study | Subjective general health (excellent vs. reference person, poor; β = 18.28 [95% CI, 11.89 to 24.67]; t = 5.61; association between mental health outcome scores (as dependent variable) and the CD-RISC scores: CD-RISC: mean 69.9 (range 20–99); PSS: mean 17.0 (range 0–7); HADS: mean 13.2 (range 0–39); MBI: emotional exhaustion: mean 26.1 (range 0–54), Depersonalization: mean 8.9 (range 0–8); Personal accomplishment: mean 36.6 (range 10–48); ProQOL: Burnout: mean 25.2 (range 10–45), secondary traumatic stress: mean 23.6 (range 10–46), Compassion satisfaction: mean 37.8 (range 14–50) |
| Shirangi et al. 2013 [ | weak | Affective Well-Being Scale, PANAS, GHQ and CGHQ | A sample consisting of 1017 female veterinary in a cross-sectional study | GHQ: > 2: 37%; CGHQ: > 4: 63% Mean score on the Anxiety-Contentment Axis: 3.72 (± 0.8); Mean score on the Depression-Enthusiasm Axis: 4.31 (± 0.82) PANAS: PA mean score 33.5 (± 6.25); NA mean score: 18.7 (± 6.12) |
| Reijula et al. 2003, Finland [ | weak | MBI, self-reported health, self-reported diseases | A sample consisting of 785 veterinary (male 225, female 550) in a cross-sectional study | severe burnout (age groups/year): 25–34: men (2.1) vs women (0.0); 35–44: men (2.0) vs women (0.0), 45–54: men (0.0) vs women (3.2), 55.65: men (0.0) vs women (3.1), total: women (1.8) vs men (1.7) self-reported health: men: 55–65 years: rather good (46.8%) > average (40.4%) > good (10.6%) > poor (2.1%) 45–54 years: rather good (47.6%) > average (32.1%) > good (14.3%) > rather poor (6%) 35–44 years: rather good (38.6%) > average (29.8%) > good (28.1%) > rather poor (3.5%) 25–34 years: rather good (40.0%) > average (30.0%) > good (26.7%) > rather poor (3.3%) women: 55–65 years: average (53.3%) > rather good (26.7%) > good (13.3%) > rather poor (6.7%) 45–54 years: rather good (36.9%) > average (31.0%) > good (22.6%) > rather poor (7.1%) > poor (2.4%) 35–44 years: rather good (39.6%) > good (31.0%) > average (25.4%) > rather poor (2.5%) > poor (1.5%) 25–34 years: rather good (40.8%) > good (36.1%) > average (21.0%) > rather poor (2.1%) self-reported diseases: mental disorder: women (8%), men (7%) |
| Rivera et al. 2021, USA [ | weak | PHQ-8 | A sample consisting of 101 veterinary (40.6% male, 59.4% female) in a longitudinal cohort study (2001, 2004, 2007, and 2011) | Mental health problem: No (84.2%. Suicidal ideation: Not at all (91.8%, Lack of social support: No (not bothered) (63.4%, |
| Schwerdtfeger et al. 2020b [ | weak | PHQ-9, SBQ-9 | A sample consisting of 3.118 veterinary (20.5% male, 79.5% female) in a cross-sectional study | PHQ-9: 27.78% were screened positive for depression (17.45% displayed moderate symptoms of depression, 10.33% indicated moderately severe to severe symptoms of depression). Compared with the general population: OR = 0.349; 95% CI 0.309 to 0.940 PHQ-9 (item 9): 19.2% having suicidal ideation in the past two weeks (15.91% reporting to have had such feelings on several days during the last two weeks, 2.31% on nearly half of the days and 0.96% nearly every day during the last two weeks). Compared with the general population: OR = 0,497; 95% CI 0,445 to 0,554 SBQ-9: 32.11% were classified as having an increased suicide risk (compared with the general population: OR = 0,150; 95% CI 0,123 to 0,183). 38.3% have never thought about, planned or attempted suicide. 24.2% report that they have planned to kill themselves at least once. 2.7% stated that they have attempted to kill themselves at least once in the past |
| Schwerdtfeger et al. 2020a, Germany [ | weak | COPSOQ, PHQ-9, SBQ-R | A sample consisting of 3179 veterinary (22.2% male, 78.8% female) in a cross-sectional study | stress makes it difficult to meet personal/family obligations = female: agree (32%), disagree (21%), partly (19%), fully agree (18%), totally disagree (9%) male: agree (29%), disagree (25%), partly (17%), totally disagree (15%), fully agree (14%) frequency feeling emotionally exhausted = female: often (36%), sometimes (33%), rarely (21%), always (5%), never (4%) male: rarely (33%), sometimes (29%), often (25%), never (11%), always (3%) current suicidal thoughts (19.2%, |
| Witte et al. 2020, England & USA [ | weak | Kessler 6 psychological distress scale and self-formulated question (revalence of serious psychological distress, a history of depressive episodes, a history of suicidal ideation, and a history of attempted suicide and negative mental health outcomes and work- and school-related emotional outcomes for respondents) | A sample consisting of 440 veterinary (Cis female: 62.0%, Cis male: 30.7%, Transgender (male to female): 0.5%, Transgender (female to male): 1.6%, Do not identify as male or female: 4.5%, Prefer not to answer: 0.7% in a cross-sectional study | Highest correlation between the scores for emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction (-0.66) Prevalence of serious psychological distress (Kessler 6 score ≥ 13) in different to the prevalences of the veterinarians in general (Nett et al. 2015 [ Prevalence of depressive episodes in different to the prevalences of the veterinarians in general (Nett et al. 2015 [ |
| Batchelor und McKeegan 2012, UK [ | weak | Ethical dilemmas: the frequency with which they faced ethical dilemmas in an average week (0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10, > 10) & three common scenarios: (1) convenience euthanasia of a healthy animal, (2) financial limitations of the client restricting the treatment options and (3) the client wishing to continue treatment despite compromised animal welfare/quality of life (scale 0–10, 0 not at all stressful, 10 extremely stressful) | A sample consisting of 58 practicing veterinary surgeons (15 male, 43 female) in a cross-sectional study | The median stress ratings (0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10, > 10): healthy animal euthanasia (female 8, male 7), financial limitations (7 female, 7 male) and client wishing to continue treatment (9 female, 8 male) Most commonly encountered dilemma: financial limitations (55%), healthy animal euthanasia (7%), client wishing to continue treatment (14%), other (5%), none give (19%) |
| Epp und Waldner 2012, Canada [ | weak | Not standardized, Scale 1–5, 1 no stress, 3 moderate, 5 severe stress | A sample consisting of 823 veterinary (44.7% male, 54.8% female, without 4) in a cross-sectional study (75.9% practice, 11.1% academia, 5.2% industry, 7.8% government) | 2% reported no job-related stress, 5% reported severe stress, whereas the majority (53%) reported moderate stress. No significance of median stress scores among veterinarians working in practice, industry, government, or academia ( Workload-related (Yes), Client-related (Yes), |
| Hagen et al. 2020 [ | weak | Questionnaire with closed and open questions within three sections: ‘current employment’, ‘about you’ and ‘you as an employer’ | A sample consisting of 2472 veterinary (22,9% male, 76,8% female) in a cross-sectional study | reasons to stay in a position ( |
| Heath 2008, Australia [ | weak | Not standardized (Respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed (SA: score = 1) agreed (A: 2), were neutral (N: 3), disagreed (D: 4) or strongly disagreed (SD: 5) with each statement) | A sample consisting of 350 veterinary (25% males, 75% females) in a cross-sectional study | I felt significant and regular stress: 29 (SA), 41 (A), 14 (N), 14 (D), 2 (SD) stress: significant and regular stress: 75% female, 57% male ( |
| Kogan et al. 2018, USA [ | weak | Not standardized (involvement with near misses (NM) and adverse events (AE)) | A sample consisting of 606 veterinary (22.6% male, 77.4% female) in a cross-sectional study | 66.4% with near misses (NM), 29.5% with adverse events (AE) in the past 12 month. NM: 68.0% with short-term (≤ 1 week after the incident) negative impact; 36.4% with long-term (> 1 week after the incident) negative impact on personal life For AE: 84.1% short-term and 56.2% long-term. NM: 37.6% less confidence in their ability as a doctor, 31.5% felt their confidence in their abilities had suffered, 29.5% ag less satisfied with their job, 26.5% felt burned out. AE: 44.3%) less confident in their ability as a doctor, 44.3% felt their confidence in their abilities had suffered, 42.4 less satisfied with their job, 37.7% felt burned out, 36.9% decrease in overall happiness, 35.1% felt that their professional reputation had been negatively impacted, 33.7% had problems sleeping, and 33.5% felt persistently guilty. – > 70.3% stress level outside of work had not impacted the number of NMs or AEs. 4.0% high stress outside of work had markedly increased the frequency of these incidents, 24.0% slightly increased the frequency of these incidents |
| Morello et al. 2019, USA [ | weak | Not standardized (reciprocal effects of career, family and gender on elements of their professional life (diploma, income, inequality etc.) | A sample consisting of 836 veterinary (59% males, 41% females) in a cross-sectional study | income: private practice > academia***, small animal > large animal***, males > females***; practice ownership: males > females***, working time: private practice owner > other**, comments about their gender related to performance: females > males***. passion for the job the most importance factor, also finicial compensation and locaton. Emergency duties were the least influential factor. Women were more likely to report negative underemployment (i.e. the desire to work fewer hours) than men |
| Moses et al. 2018, North America (USA—Canada) [ | weak | Not standardized (ethical conflict and moral distress) | A sample consisting of 889 veterinary in a cross-sectional study | Moral distress levels and coping methods: not being able to do the right thing: severe stress (73%), moderate—severe stress (78%), not being able to provide care they thought was appropriate: moderate—severe distress (69%), distressed or anxious about work: often (43%) > some-times (34%) |
List of valid survey instruments used with indication of cut-off values
| Valid survey instruments (with reference to workload, psychosocial stressors, mental well-being, burnout, psychological problems, anxiety, depression, and suicidal factors) | Cut-off values |
|---|---|
| Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) [ | caseness: ≥ 8; possible case: 8–10; probable case: ≥ 11 |
| Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) [ | 14 individual item scores from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time) (scores 14 to 70): The higher the values in the score, the more pronounced the mental well-being |
| Health and Safety Executive management standards indicator tool (HSE MSIT) [ | 35 questions grouped into seven key stressor domains: demands (8 items), control (6 items), managerial support (5 items), peer support (4 items), relationships (4 items), role (5 items), and change (3 items), which have the potential to have a negative impact on employee mental health and well-being. Each question scores 1–5 from the least favourable working conditions (high risk of stress at work) to the most favourable working conditions (low risk of stress at work), respectively. The overall score for each of the seven stressor domain scales is calculated for each respondent by adding the item scores for each question answered in that scale and dividing by the total number of questions answered in that scale |
| Survey Work-home Interaction Nijmegen (SWING) [ | A total of 22 items in 4 subscales. An aggregate result is calculeated based on the total score obtained in eaach of the four subscales |
| Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) & MBI-Human Services Scale (MBI-HSS) (designed for professionals in the human services) [ | Occupational exhaustion (EE): < 17 (low degree), 18 – 29 (moderate degree), > 30 (high degree) Depersonalisation (DP): < 5 (low degree), 6 – 11 (moderate degree), > 12 (high degree) Personal accomplishment assessment (PA): < 33 (low degree), 34 – 39 (moderate degree), > 40 (high degree) |
| Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) [ | Five point Likert scale with three subscales: personal (six items), work burnout (seven items), and client burnout (six items). Scores ranged from 1 – 100 (high score = burnout risk) |
| Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) [ | 3 subscales: Compassion Satisfaction (pleasure you derive from being able to do your work well), Burnout (exhaustion, frustration, anger and depression related to work): Secondary Traumatic Stress (feeling fear in relation to work‐related primary or secondary trauma) For each of the sub-scales scores are categorised as Low (22 or less), Moderate (between 23 and 41) or High (42 or more) |
| Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) [ | 25 items, each rated on a 5-point scale (0–4), with higher scores reflecting greater resilience |
| Swedish Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (DCSQ) [ | 3 subscales (psychological demands, decision latitude, social support) with 17 items High scores: high occupational stress, high work control and high social support |
| Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21) [ | 21 items in three self-report scales Depression (score): normal (0–9), mild (10–13), moderate (14–20), severe (21–27), extremly severe (28 +) Anxiety (score): normal (0–7), mild (8–9), moderate (10–14), severe (15–19), extremly severe (20 +) Stress (score): normal (0–14), mild (15–18), moderate (19–25), severe (26–33), extremly severe (34 +) |
| Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) [ | 2 scales (positve affect, negative affect) with each 10 items. Scores can range from 10 – 50, with higher scores representing higher levels of positive or negative affect |
| Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS-Reduced) [ | 35 items in four subscales for perfectionism (concern over mistakes and doubts about actions, excessive concern with parents’ expectations and evaluation, excessively high personal standards, concern with precision, order and organisation): Higher percentiles indicate more problems while a percentile closer to 50 represents average (and healthy) responses. Percentile scores above the 90th percentile are of clinical significance and represent dysfunctional perfectionism |
| Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [ | Score (10–50); < 20: well; 20–24: mild mental disorder; 25–29: moderate mental disorder; ≥ 30: severe mental disorder |
| Compassion Fatigue Short Scale (CFSS) [ | Score (13–130) from low/no compassion fatigue to frequent symptoms of compassion fatigue: very low = < 27, low = 27–30, mild = 31–35, high = 36–40 and > 40 = very high |
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) [ & Chronicity and the General Health Questionnaire (CGHQ) [ | 2 items, each assessing the severity of a mental problem over the past few weeks using a 4-point scale (from 0 to 3). Psychological distress was defined as scoring above 2 when the responses are summed across the 12 items |
Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) [ & Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-9) [ | 8 item scala with a score from 0 – 24 (≥ 10 Depression) & 9 item scala with a score from 0 – 24 (≥ 10 Depression) and one additional item to assess suicidal ideation (Item 9) |
| Positive and Negative Occupational Stress Inventory (PNOSI) [ | 19 items (8 items assessed job engagement, 11 items assessed job strain) Moderate level of job strain/job engagement (values 40 – 60), very low job engagement (< 40) |
| Suicide Behaviours Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R) [ | Scala with 4 items. The total score of the four items ranges from 3 to 18, with a score of 8 and above used to identify patients with increased suicide risk |
| Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) [ | 10 items (5-point Likert): 0–13 (low stress); 14–26 (moderate stress) 27–40 (high perceived stress) |
| Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) [ | A long version with 141 items forming 30 scales, the so-called “research questionnaire”. A medium-length version with 95 items on 26 scales, the “questionnaire for work environment professionals”. A short version with only 44 items and 8 scales "questionnaire for workplaces |
| Job Stress Survey (JSS) [ | 10-item subscales (0 to 9 + days) |
| NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) [ | The sum of the items of the 5-point scale results in a category for the degree of expression of the characteristic in the participant: very low, low, average, high or very high |
| Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale [ | A mean score for each scale is found by reverse scoring each of the negative adjectives, adding each response, and dividing by the number of responses. Higher scores on each scale indicates higher affective well-being in that category |
| Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) [ | In order to interpret the scores of a particular group of employees on (a dimension of) the UWES, the mean score from the database can be used |