Cited by 187Stress and Burnout ResearchOccupational Health and BurnoutHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influence of perceived organisational factors on job burnout: survey of community mental health staff.

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Staff burnout is a critical issue for mental healthcare delivery, as it can lead to decreased work performance and, ultimately, to poorer treatment outcomes. AIMS: To explore the relative weight of job-related characteristics and perceived organisational factors in predicting burnout in staff working in community-based psychiatric services. METHOD: A representative sample of 2000 mental health staff working in the Veneto region, Italy, participated. Burnout and perceived organisational factors were assessed by using the Organizational Checkup Survey. RESULTS: Overall, high levels of job distress affected nearly two-thirds of the psychiatric staff and one in five staff members suffered from burnout. Psychiatrists and social workers reported the highest levels of burnout, and support workers and psychologists, the lowest. Burnout was mostly predicted by a higher frequency of face-to-face interaction with users, longer tenure in mental healthcare, weak work group cohesion and perceived unfairness. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the workplace atmosphere within psychiatric services should be one of the most important targets in staff burnout prevention strategies. The potential benefits of such programmes may, in turn, have a favourable impact on patient outcomes.

Overview

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.060871

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 55 references

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 2008, National NHS Staff Survey 2007: Summary of Key Findings
  2. Rabe-Hesketh, 2004, GLLAMM Manual
  3. Leiter, 2000, Organizational Checkup Survey
  4. Leiter, 2004, Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 3: Emotional and Physiological Processes and Positive Intervention Strategies, 91
  5. Pajak, 2003, Workload and Working Patterns in Consultant Psychiatrists. An Investigation into Occupational Pressure and Burdens
  6. Maslach, 1997, The Truth about Burnout
  7. 2001, Finding and Keeping: Review of Recruitment and Retention in the Mental Health Workforce
  8. Borgogni, 2005, Il questionario di Checkup Organizzativo. Manuale dell'adattamento italiano [Organisational Checkup Survey
  9. Schaufeli, 2000, UBOS Utrecht Burnout Scale: Manual

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lasalvia, A., Bonetto, C., Bertani, M., Bissoli, S., Cristofalo, D., Marrella, G., Ceccato, E., Cremonese, C., De Rossi, M., Lazzarotto, L., Marangon, V., Morandin, I., Zucchetto, M., Tansella, M., & PICOS-Veneto Group
Affiliations
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Ospedale di Mirano (IT)
Corresponding author
Lasalvia, Antonio
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2009-12
Volume
195
Issue
6
Pages
537-544
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2159852293
Cited by
187
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 19
FWCI
13.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Università degli Studi di Padova
  • Università degli Studi di Verona
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Burnout
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Keywords
burnout, mental health professionals, community mental health services, organizational factors, team cohesion, perceived injustice, employee turnover, burnout prevention, workplace atmosphere, social workers, psychiatrists, support staff, psychologists
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Allied Health Personnel, Burnout, Professional, Community Health Nursing, Community Mental Health Services, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Social Work, Socioeconomic Factors, Organizational Culture, Workload, Workplace

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