Cited by 33Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout ResearchInnovations in Medical Education

Resident Burnout, Wellness, Professional Development, and Engagement Before and After New Training Schedule Implementation

Open access
Heppe, Daniel, Baduashvili, Amiran, Limes, Julia E., Suddarth, Katie, Mann, Adrienne, Gottenborg, Emily, Sacro, Yasmin, Davis, Lisa +2 more·2024·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Burnout is a work-related syndrome of depersonalization (DP), emotional exhaustion (EE), and low personal achievement (PA) that is prevalent among internal medicine resident trainees. Prior interventions have had modest effects on resident burnout. The association of a new 4 + 4 block schedule (4 inpatient weeks plus 4 outpatient weeks) with resident burnout has not previously been evaluated. Objective: To evaluate the association of a 4 + 4 block schedule, compared with a 4 + 1 schedule, with burnout, wellness, and self-reported professional engagement and clinical preparedness among resident physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized preintervention and postintervention survey study was conducted in a single academic-based internal medicine residency program from June 2019 to June 2021. The study included residents in the categorical, hospitalist, and primary care tracks in postgraduate years 1 and 2 (PGY1 and PGY2). Data analysis was conducted from October to December 2022. Intervention: In the 4 + 4 structure, resident schedules alternated between 4-week inpatient call-based rotations and 4-week ambulatory non–call-based rotations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was burnout, assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory subcategories of EE (range, 0-54), DP (range, 0-30), and PA (range, 0-48), adjusted for sex and PGY. Secondary outcomes included In-Training Examination (ITE) scores and a questionnaire on professional, educational, and health outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the primary outcome, 1-way analysis of variance was used to compare ITE percentiles, and a Bonferroni-adjusted Kruskal Wallis test was used for the remaining secondary outcomes. The findings were reexamined with several sensitivity analyses, and Cohen’s D was used to estimate standardized mean differences (SMDs). Results: Of the 313 eligible residents, 216 completed the surveys. A total of 107 respondents (49.5%) were women and 109 (50.5%) were men; 119 (55.1%) were PGY1 residents. The survey response rates were 78.0% (85 of 109) in the preintervention cohort and 60.6% (63 of 104) and 68.0% (68 of 100) in the 2 postintervention cohorts. The PGY1 residents had higher response rates than the PGY2 residents (119 of 152 [78.2%] vs 97 of 161 [60.2%]; P < .001). Adjusted EE scores (mean difference [MD], −6.78 [95% CI, −9.24 to −4.32]) and adjusted DP scores (MD, −3.81 [95% CI, −5.29 to −2.34]) were lower in the combined postintervention cohort. The change in PA scores was not statistically significant (MD, 1.4 [95% CI, −0.49 to 3.29]). Of the 15 items exploring professional, educational, and health outcomes, a large positive association was observed for 11 items (SMDs >1.0). No statistically significant change in ITE percentile ranks was noted. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of internal medicine resident physicians, a positive association was observed between a 4 + 4 block training schedule and internal medicine resident burnout scores and improved self-reported professional, educational, and health outcomes. These results suggest that specific 4 + 4 block combinations may better improve resident burnout than a 4 + 1 combination used previously.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0037

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the organizational work-hour intervention subgroup, there was no significant post-intervention effect across all outcome domains: EE -0.20 (95% CI -0.58 to 0.17, p = 0.29, I2 = 67.1%), DP -0.16 (95% CI -0.48 to 0.16, p = 0.33, I2 = 55.8%), and PA 0.04 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.20, p = 0.60, I2 = 0%).

    “Subgroup analyses revealed no post-intervention Cohen’s d SMD in work-hour interventions [44, 45, 47, 73, 76] across all outcome domains: EE (-0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.17, p = 0.29, I2 = 67.1%), DP (-0.16, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.16, p = 0.33, I2 = 55.8%), and PA (0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.20, p = 0.60, I2 = 0%).”
  • Organizational interventions showed no statistically significant association with any burnout domain (EE, DP, PA).

    “In organizational intervention studies [44, 45, 47–49, 73, 76], pooling of post-intervention intervention Cohen’s d SMD yielded non-statistically significant resulted in all outcomes, EE (-0.22, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.04, p = 0.10, I2 = 62.6%) (Fig. 3A), DP (-0.15, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.08, p = 0.21, I2 = 53.0%) (Fig. 3B), and PA (0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.25, p = 0.07; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3C).”
  • The majority of studies employed non-randomized, non-concurrent designs, with 9 using historical controls, 13 utilizing self-control studies, and 11 randomized controlled concurrent trials.

    “The majority of studies employed non-randomized, non-concurrent designs, with 9 (27.2%) using historical controls [44, 48, 49, 56, 59, 68, 71, 75, 76] and 13 (39.4%) utilizing self-control studies [47, 50, 53, 54, 58, 61, 65–67, 69, 70, 72, 73]. Eleven (33.3%) studies were randomized, controlled, concurrent trials [45, 51, 52, 55, 57, 60–64, 74].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heppe, D., Baduashvili, A., Limes, J. E., Suddarth, K., Mann, A., Gottenborg, E., Sacro, Y., Davis, L., Chacko, K., & Connors, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Heppe, Daniel
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2024-02-28
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e240037
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392242475
Cited by
33
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5
FWCI
19.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
resident burnout, internal medicine residency, resident well-being, professional engagement, professional development, clinical preparedness, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, academic medicine workforce, physician well-being, Maslach Burnout Inventory
MeSH terms
Burnout, Psychological, Emotional Exhaustion, Female, Humans, Inservice Training, Male, Psychological Tests, Hospitalists, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review