Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Associations of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To examine the association of physician burnout with the career engagement and the quality of patient care globally.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from database inception until May 2021.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Observational studies assessing the association of physician burnout (including a feeling of overwhelming emotional exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from job defined as depersonalisation, and a sense of ineffectiveness and little personal accomplishment) with career engagement (job satisfaction, career choice regret, turnover intention, career development, and productivity loss) and the quality of patient care (patient safety incidents, low professionalism, and patient satisfaction). Data were double extracted by independent reviewers and checked through contacting all authors, 84 (49%) of 170 of whom confirmed their data. Random-effect models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratio, prediction intervals expressed the amount of heterogeneity, and meta-regressions assessed for potential moderators with significance set using a conservative level of P<0.10.

          Results

          4732 articles were identified, of which 170 observational studies of 239 246 physicians were included in the meta-analysis. Overall burnout in physicians was associated with an almost four times decrease in job satisfaction compared with increased job satisfaction (odds ratio 3.79, 95% confidence interval 3.24 to 4.43, I 2=97%, k=73 studies, n=146 980 physicians). Career choice regret increased by more than threefold compared with being satisfied with their career choice (3.49, 2.43 to 5.00, I 2=97%, k=16, n=33 871). Turnover intention also increased by more than threefold compared with retention (3.10, 2.30 to 4.17, I 2=97%, k=25, n=32 271). Productivity had a small but significant effect (1.82, 1.08 to 3.07, I 2=83%, k=7, n=9581) and burnout also affected career development from a pooled association of two studies (3.77, 2.77 to 5.14, I 2=0%, n=3411). Overall physician burnout doubled patient safety incidents compared with no patient safety incidents (2.04, 1.69 to 2.45, I 2=87%, k=35, n=41 059). Low professionalism was twice as likely compared with maintained professionalism (2.33, 1.96 to 2.70, I 2=96%, k=40, n=32 321), as was patient dissatisfaction compared with patient satisfaction (2.22, 1.38 to 3.57, I 2=75%, k=8, n=1002). Burnout and poorer job satisfaction was greatest in hospital settings (1.88, 0.91 to 3.86, P=0.09), physicians aged 31-50 years (2.41, 1.02 to 5.64, P=0.04), and working in emergency medicine and intensive care (2.16, 0.98 to 4.76, P=0.06); burnout was lowest in general practitioners (0.16, 0.03 to 0.88, P=0.04). However, these associations did not remain significant in the multivariable regressions. Burnout and patient safety incidents were greatest in physicians aged 20-30 years (1.88, 1.07 to 3.29, P=0.03), and people working in emergency medicine (2.10, 1.09 to 3.56, P=0.02). The association of burnout with low professionalism was smallest in physicians older than 50 years (0.36, 0.19 to 0.69, P=0.003) and greatest in physicians still in training or residency (2.27, 1.45 to 3.60, P=0.001), in those who worked in a hospital (2.16, 1.46 to 3.19, P<0.001), specifically in emergency medicine specialty (1.48, 1.01 to 2.34, P=0.042), or situated in a low to middle income country (1.68, 0.94 to 2.97, P=0.08).

          Conclusions

          This meta-analysis provides compelling evidence that physician burnout is associated with poor function and sustainability of healthcare organisations primarily by contributing to the career disengagement and turnover of physicians and secondarily by reducing the quality of patient care. Healthcare organisations should invest more time and effort in implementing evidence-based strategies to mitigate physician burnout across specialties, and particularly in emergency medicine and for physicians in training or residency.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO number CRD42021249492.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: NIHR senior fellow
                Role: doctoral fellow
                Role: associate professor
                Role: honorary research fellow
                Role: senior lecturer
                Role: medical student
                Role: associate professor
                Role: professor
                Role: clinical director
                Role: professor
                Role: senior lecturer
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2022
                14 September 2022
                : 378
                : e070442
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [2 ]School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [3 ]Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK
                [4 ]School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
                [5 ]School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [6 ]Laboratory of Hygiene, Aristotle Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
                [7 ]School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Newcastle, UK
                [8 ]Westminster Centre for Resilience, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Westminster, London, UK
                [9 ]National Institute for Health Research Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A Hodkinson alexander.hodkinson@ 123456manchester.ac.uk (or @drAlexHodkinson on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2063-0977
                Article
                bmj-2022-070442.R2 hoda070442
                10.1136/bmj-2022-070442
                9472104
                36104064
                27c81d6d-80df-4dba-8947-8ff1cc16588d
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 03 July 2022
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article