| Literature DB >> 36061283 |
Panagiota Koutsimani1, Anthony Montgomery2.
Abstract
Burnout is often characterized by cognitive deficits and it has been associated with depression and anxiety. However, it is not clear whether cognitive impairment is a burnout consequence or employees with poor cognitive skills are more prone in developing burnout. Moreover, the exact nature of the association between burnout and depression, and burnout and anxiety is still unknown. Depression and anxiety are also related to cognitive impairments but their prospective associations are not fully understood. The aim of the present three-wave longitudinal study was to investigate the causality between cognitive functioning, burnout, depression, and anxiety among non-clinical burnout employees. The cause-effect associations of burnout with depression and anxiety were also explored. Perceived family support as a protective factor against cognitive decline, burnout, depression and anxiety was examined as well. A wide range of cognitive tasks tapping different cognitive domains were administered to employees of the general working population. Burnout, depression, anxiety, and perceived family support were assessed with self-reported questionnaires. Present results suggest that visuospatial functioning deficits are a burnout consequence and they indicate the role of automatic processing skills and executive functions in burnout onset. Additionally, current findings support that burnout is differentiated from depression and anxiety but it is reciprocally associated with the two psychological phenomena. Lastly, current results support the inclusion of perceived family support as an intervention to help individuals who suffer from mental health and cognitive difficulties.Entities:
Keywords: anxiety; burnout; cognitive functioning; cognitive impairment; depression; longitudinal study; perceived family support
Year: 2022 PMID: 36061283 PMCID: PMC9428402 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.978566
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
FIGURE 1Schematic figure of the study’s procedure.
Demographic characteristics of the participants at T1 (N = 104), T2 (N = 72), and T3 (N = 55).
| Characteristic | T1 | T2 | T3 |
| 40.40 (10.06) | 39.80 (9.80) | 40.10 (9.89) | |
| 16.82 (1.39) | 16.88 (1.37) | 16.90 (1.26) | |
| 15.20 (8.67) | 15.97 (10.64) | 16.18 (11.44) | |
| 40/64 (38.5/61.5) | 28/44 (38.9/61.1) | 22/33 (40/60) | |
|
| |||
|
| 62 (59.6) | 44 (61.1) | 33 (60) |
|
| 42 (40.4) | 28 (38.9) | 22 (40) |
|
| 22 (21.1) | 17 (23.6) | 9 (20) |
|
| 24/80 (23.1/76.9) | 16/56 (22.2/77.8) | 13/42 (23.6/76.4) |
|
| |||
|
| 8 (7.7) | 8 (11.1) | 7 (12.7) |
|
| 47 (45.2) | 31 (43.1) | 24 (43.6) |
|
| 1 (1) | – | – |
|
| 4 (3.8) | 4 (5.6) | 3 (5.5) |
|
| 3 (2.9) | – | – |
|
| 41 (39.4) | 29 (40.3) | 21 (38.2) |
|
| Mean ( | Mean ( | Mean ( |
| Exhaustion | 2.89 (1.54) | 2.88 (1.56) | 2.97 (1.70) |
| Cynicism | 2.08 (1.30) | 2.54 (1.45) | 2.58 (1.51) |
| Personal efficacy | 5.05 (0.96) | 5.04 (0.85) | 5.00 (0.88) |
| HADS-depression | 5.02 (3.24) | 5.08 (3.38) | 5.69 (3.22) |
| HADS-anxiety | 6.33 (3.82) | 6.12 (3.69) | 6.45 (4.00) |
| Family support | 51.40 (8.88) | 51.50 (8.82) | 52.50 (8.66) |
Correlations of demographics (T1) with MBI-GS (T3) and cognitive tasks (T3) (N = 104).
| Variable | Exh. | CY | PE | TCFT-del. | Stroop-CW |
| Hours/week-main | −0.34 | 0.37 |
|
| 0.33 |
| Hours/week-second | ns | ns | ns | 0.28 | ns |
| Sector | ns | ns | ns | 0.29 | |
| Years of working experience | −0.42 | ns | ns | ns | −0.36 |
| Family status | −0.34 | ns | ns | ns | −0.30 |
| No of children | −0.36 | ns | ns | ||
| Age | −0.32 | ns | ns | ns | −0.45 |
| Gender | ns | ns | 0.33 | ns | ns |
Exh, Exhaustion; CY, Cynicism; PE, Personal Efficacy; TCFT-del., Taylor Complex Figure Test—delay condition; Stroop CW, Stroop Color-Word condition; Hours/week-main, Working hours for the main occupation; Hours/week, Working hours for the second occupation; Sector, Public and Private; Family Status, Single, In a Relationship, Cohabitating, Married, Separated, Divorced; ns, non-significant.
**p < 0.01 level (2-tailed); *p < 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Linear mixed model analysis of MBI-GS subscales as predictive factors (N = 104).
| Exhaustion | Cynicism | Personal Efficacy | |||||||
| Parameter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Depression | 0.85 + | 0.14 | 0.57, 1.13 | 0.83 + | 0.13 | 0.55, 1.11 | −0.81 + | 0.29 | −1.42, −0.21 |
| Anxiety | 1.07 + | 0.16 | 0.73, 1.40 | 0.78 + | 0.16 | 0.44, 1.12 | −1.05 + | 0.28 | −1.62, −0.48 |
| Family support | ns | ns | ns | −1.17 | 0.48 | −2.14, −0.01 | ns | ns | ns |
| TCFT-copy | ns | ns | ns | −0.12 | 0.05 | −0.23, 0.01 | ns | ns | ns |
| Stroop-W | ns | ns | ns | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.00, 0.22 | ns | ns | ns |
| Stroop-CW | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.01 + | 0.00 | 0.00, 0.02 |
*p < 0.05; +p < 0.01, b, unstandardized coefficient; ns, non-significant; TCFT, Taylor Complex Figure Test; Stroop-W, Stroop Word; Stroop-CW, Stroop Color Word.
FIGURE 2Schematic figure of the results regarding the burnout—cognitive functioning relationship.
Linear mixed model analysis of depression and anxiety as predictive factors (N = 104).
| Depression | Anxiety | |||||
| Parameter |
|
| 95% CI |
|
| 95% CI |
| Exhaustion | 0.14 + | 0.02 | 0.08, 0.20 | 0.16 + | 0.02 | 0.11, 0.21 |
| Cynicism | 0.18 + | 0.03 | 0.12, 0.24 | 0.15 + | 0.02 | 0.10, 0.20 |
| Personal efficacy | −0.12 + | 0.02 | −0.18, −0.07 | −0.05 + | 0.01 | −0.09, −0.02 |
| Family support | −0.88 + | 0.21 | −1.30, −0.46 | −0.68 + | 0.19 | −1.07, −0.29 |
+p < 0.01, b, unstandardized coefficient.
Linear mixed model analysis of perceived family support as a predictive factor (N = 80).
| Parameter |
|
| 95% CI |
| Cynicism | −0.03 | 0.01 | −0.06, −0.00 |
| Depression | −0.13 + | 0.03 | −0.20, −0.07 |
| Anxiety | −0.13 + | 0.03 | −0.20, −0.06 |
| TCFT-delayed | 0.00 + | 0.00 | 0.00, 0.00 |
*p < 0.05; +p < 0.01, b, unstandardized coefficient; TCFT-delayed, Taylor Complex Figure Test-delayed recall condition.