Cited by 599Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutOccupational Health and BurnoutStress and Burnout Research

Using a Single Item to Measure Burnout in Primary Care Staff: A Psychometric Evaluation

Open access
Dolan, Emily D., Mohr, David, Lempa, Michele, Joos, Sandra, Fihn, Stephan D., Nelson, Karin M., Helfrich, Christian D.·2015·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Burnout affects nearly half of all U.S. nurses and physicians, and has been linked to poor outcomes such as worse patient safety. The most common measure of burnout is the well-validated Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). However, the MBI is proprietary and carries licensing fees, posing challenges to routine or repeated assessment.Objective To compare a non-proprietary, single-item burnout measure to a single item from the MBI Emotional Exhaustion (MBI:EE) subscale that has been validated as a standalone burnout measure.Design Cross-sectional online survey.Participants A sample of primary care providers (PCPs), registered nurses, clinical associates (e.g., licensed practical nurses (LPNs), medical technicians), and administrative clerks in the Veterans Health Administration surveyed in 2012.Main methods We compared a validated one-item version of the MBI:EE and a non-proprietary single-item burnout measure used in the Physician Work Life Study. We calculated kappa statistics, sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). We conducted analyses stratified by occupation to determine the stability of the correlation between the two measures.Key results We analyzed responses from 5,404 participants, including 1,769 providers and 1,380 registered nurses. The prevalence of burnout was 36.7% as measured on the single MBI:EE item and 38.5% as measured on the non-proprietary single-item measure. Relative to the MBI:EE, the non-proprietary single-item measure had a correlation of 0.79, sensitivity of 83.2%, specificity of 87.4%, and AUC of 0.93 (se = 0.004). Results were similar when stratified by respondent occupation.Conclusions A non-proprietary single-item measure served as a reliable substitute for the MBI:EE across occupations. Because it is non-proprietary and easy to interpret, it has logistical advantages over the one-item MBI.

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 · 10.1007/s11606-014-3112-6

Cites

45 of 45 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dolan, E. D., Mohr, D., Lempa, M., Joos, S., Fihn, S. D., Nelson, K. M., & Helfrich, C. D.
Affiliations
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Helfrich, Christian D.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2014-12-02
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
582-587
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2083946992
Cited by
599
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4
FWCI
17.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Office of Patient Care Services, Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
burnout, Maslach Burnout Inventory, emotional exhaustion, primary care staff, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, Veterans Health Administration, psychometric validation, diagnostic accuracy, occupational health
MeSH terms
Adult, Burnout, Professional, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care, Psychometrics, Stress, Psychological, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Workload, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve, Young Adult, Physicians, Primary Care

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