| Literature DB >> 36114499 |
Emina Hadžibajramović1,2, Malin Hansson3, Magnus Akerstrom4,5, Anna Dencker3, Gunnel Hensing5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many workplaces, within the healthcare sector, experience high rates of mental health problems such as burnout, anxiety, and depression, due to poor psychosocial working conditions and midwives are not an exception. To develop preventive interventions, epidemiologic surveillance of burnout levels, and their relation to professional specific working conditions is needed. Aims of this study is to assess the construct validity of the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) in the context of Swedish midwives, to evaluate whether the item responses can be combined into a single score and differential item functioning regarding age. Another aim was to assess the burnout levels of Swedish midwives.Entities:
Keywords: BAT; Burnout; Burnout Assessment Tool; Midwives; Rasch analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36114499 PMCID: PMC9482233 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08552-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.908
Overall fit statistics in two random samples (n = 800 each) drawn from the Swedish Midwife Survey
| BAT 23 items | -0.22 | 2.94 | -0.33 | 1.43 | 454.96 | < 0.0001 | 0.94 | 20.73 (18.05;23.68) | 0.94 |
| BAT 4 testlets | -0.02 | 2.13 | -0.34 | 0.87 | 44.53 | 0.16 | 0.84 | 5.40 (4.02;7.21) | 0.81 |
| BAT 23 items | -0.10 | 3.13 | -0.34 | 1.45 | 489.15 | < 0.0001 | 0.94 | 21.15 (18.46;24.12) | 0.94 |
| BAT 4 testlets | 0.08 | 2.01 | -0.36 | 0.93 | 35.34 | 0.50 | 0.85 | 4.88 (3.58;6.61) | 0.81 |
Item fit residuals, item thresholds and standard errors from the BAT23 analysis (bold indicates reversed thresholds), random sample 1 (n = 800) drawn from the Swedish Midwife Survey
| EX1 | -2.74 | -4.61 (0.081) | -2.21 (0.080) | -0.59 (0.111) | 2.20 (0.335) |
| EX2 | 8.55 | -5.32 (0.090) | -3.05 (0.078) | -1.36 (0.092) | 0.75 (0.172) |
| EX3 | -1.06 | -5.00 (0.084) | -2.69 (0.078) | -0.53 (0.108) | 1.00 (0.214) |
| EX4 | -0.29 | -3.63 (0.077) | -1.62 (0.087) | 0.21 (0.142) | 2.67 (0.495) |
| EX5 | -1.53 | -4.59 (0.080) | -2.25 (0.080) | -0.34 (0.117) | 1.18 (0.239) |
| EX6 | -4.87 | -2.89 (0.076) | -0.84 (0.101) | 0.69 (0.183) | 3.24 (0.751) |
| EX7 | -2.06 | -3.34 (0.078) | -1.59 (0.089) | -0.14 (0.132) | 1.62 (0.302) |
| EX8 | -1.58 | -5.22 (0.087) | -2.83 (0.078) | -1.13 (0.097) | 0.95 (0.191) |
| MD1 | -1.58 | -3.77 (0.076) | -1.24 (0.091) | 0.24 (0.150) | 1.91 (0.377) |
| MD2 | 4.29 | -2.51 (0.078) | -0.75 (0.105) | 0.56 (0.181) | 2.35 (0.509) |
| MD3 | -0.03 | -1.28 (0.086) | 0.23 (0.148) | 1.07 (0.274) | 3.76 (1.184) |
| MD4 | 1.86 | -1.12 (0.089) | 0.04 (0.144) | 1.04 (0.266) | 1.86 (0.549) |
| MD5 | 2.90 | -0.84 (0.094) | -0.02 (0.148) | 1.04 (0.266) | 3.00 (0.847) |
| CI1 | -2.04 | -3.91 (0.075) | -0.89 (0.095) | 1.62 (0.245) | 3.08 (0.907) |
| CI2 | -3.39 | -3.61 (0.075) | -0.92 (0.096) | 1.77 (0.259) | 4.23 (1.544) |
| CI3 | -0.98 | -3.79 (0.075) | -1.07 (0.093) | 0.92 (0.186) | 3.39 (0.833) |
| CI4 | -2.99 | -3.81 (0.076) | -0.75 (0.098) | 1.41 (0.232) | 4.43 (1.539) |
| CI5 | 1.30 | -2.65 (0.079) | 0.95 (0.158) | ||
| EI1 | 1.17 | -2.22 (0.079) | 0.58 (0.146) | 3.46 (0.739) | 5.85 (6.555) |
| EI2 | -1.48 | -1.57 (0.083) | 0.10 (0.137) | 1.79 (0.339) | 2.82 (0.973) |
| EI3 | 1.87 | -3.02 (0.076) | -0.78 (0.101) | 1.03 (0.205) | 7.68 (6.740) |
| EI4 | -2.42 | -1.34 (0.085) | 0.37 (0.152) | 1.42 (0.320) | 6.96 (5.891) |
| EI5 | 2.07 | -1.86 (0.080) | 0.24 (0.137) | 1.92 (0.363) | 6.19 (4.523) |
Fig. 1Person and item threshold distribution along the logit scale of burnout, based on the four testlets analysis (higher values indicate higher burnout levels) measured with the Burnout Assessment Tool on Swedish midwives
Burnout levels in Swedish midwives (n = 1664) measured with the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) (BAT-tot = total burnout score, EX = exhaustion, MD = mental distance, CI = cognitive impairment, EI = emotional impairment, Q1 = first quartile, Q3 = third quartile, younger = up to median age of 47, older = above median age)
| Younger | 2.1 (1.7;2.5) | 2.6 (2.1;3.1) | 1.6 (1.2;2.2) | 2.0 (1.6;2.6) | 1.6 (1.2;2.0) |
| Older | 1.9 (1.6;2.3) | 2.4 (1.9;2.9) | 1.4 (1.2;2.0) | 2.0 (1.4;2.2) | 1.4 (1.2;2.0) |
| Total sample | 2.0 (1.6;2.4) | 2.5 (2.0;3.0) | 1.6 (1.2;2.0) | 2.0 (1.6;2.4) | 1.6 (1.2;2.0) |
| Younger | 1.0–4.4 | 1.0–5.0 | 1.0–4.4 | 1.0–5.0 | 1.0–4.6 |
| Older | 1.0–3.9 | 1.0–4.9 | 1.0–4.4 | 1.0–4.0 | 1.0–3.8 |
| Total sample | 1.0–4.4 | 1.0–5.0 | 1.0–4.4 | 1.0–5.0 | 1.0–4.6 |
Fig. 2Score distributions of the BAT-total burnout and the four subscales measured with the Burnout Assessment tool on Swedish midwives