Cited by 48Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout ResearchOccupational Health and Burnout

Association of Weekly Protected Nonclinical Time With Resident Physician Burnout and Well-being

Open access
Stevens, Kristin, Davey, Cynthia, Lassig, Amy Anne·2020·JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery

Abstract

Importance: Burnout among physicians is high, with resulting concern about quality of care. With burnout beginning early in physician training, much-needed data are lacking on interventions to decrease burnout and improve well-being among resident physicians. Objectives: To design a departmental-level burnout intervention, evaluate its association with otolaryngology residents' burnout and well-being, and describe how residents used and perceived the study intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective, nonrandomized crossover study was conducted from September 25, 2017, to June 24, 2018, among all 19 current residents in the Department of Otolaryngology at the University of Minnesota. Statistical analysis was performed from June 28 to August 7, 2018. Interventions: All participants were assigned 2 hours per week of protected nonclinical time alternating with a control period of no intervention at 6-week intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Burnout was measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory and Mini-Z Survey. Well-being was measured by the Resident and Fellow Well-Being Index and a quality-of-life single-item self-assessment. In addition to a baseline demographic survey, participants completed the aforementioned surveys at approximately 6-week intervals during the study period. Results: Among the 19 residents in the study (10 men [53%]), the overall protected time intervention (week 0 to week 32) was associated with a mean decrease of 0.63 points (95% CI, -1.03 to -0.22 points) in the Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion score, indicating a clinically meaningful decrease in burnout, and a mean decrease of 1.26 points (95% CI, -2.18 to -0.34 points) in the Resident and Fellow Well-Being Index score, indicating a clinically meaningful improvement in well-being. The baseline to week 32 mean changes in the Maslach Burnout Inventory depersonalization score, Maslach Burnout Inventory personal accomplishment score, and quality-of-life single-item self-assessment were not clinically meaningful. There were clinically meaningful improvements in 4 of 6 tested Mini-Z Questionnaire items from baseline to week 32: job stress (weighted κ statistic, 0.21; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.53), burnout (weighted κ statistic, 0.25; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.53), control over workload (weighted κ statistic, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.53), and sufficient time for documentation (weighted κ statistic, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.54). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that 2 hours per week of protected nonclinical time was associated with decreased burnout and increased well-being in a small sample of otolaryngology residents. Future randomized clinical studies in larger cohorts are warranted to infer causality of decreased burnout and increased well-being as a result of protected nonclinical time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.3654

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • Outcome measurements were conducted using various versions of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI): 26 studies used the 22-item MBI, 5 used the 9-item MBI, 1 used the 20-item Dutch version, and 1 used the 16-item MBI.

    “Outcome measurements were conducted using various versions of the validated MBI. Specifically, 26 studies (78.7%) used the 22-item MBI [44, 45, 47–49, 51, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60–65, 67, 68, 70–76], 5 studies (15.2%) employed the 9-item MBI [50, 53, 55, 59, 69], 1 study (3.0%) used the 20-item Dutch version of the MBI [57], and 1 study (3.0%) utilized the 16-item MBI [66].”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevens, K., Davey, C., & Lassig, A. A.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Stevens, Kristin
Venue
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
Published
2020-02-01
Volume
146
Issue
2
Pages
168
ISSN
2168-6181 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997495199
Cited by
48
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002494)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
Keywords
physician well-being, otolaryngology residents, residency training, burnout intervention, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, occupational stress, quality of life, Maslach Burnout Inventory, work-life balance
MeSH terms
Work-Life Balance, Burnout, Professional, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Otolaryngology, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Workload, Cross-Over Studies

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