Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

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

Burnout and Career Satisfaction Among US Oncologists

Open access
Shanafelt, Tait D., Gradishar, William J., Kosty, Michael, Satele, Daniel, Chew, Helen, Horn, Leora, Clark, Ben, Hanley, Amy E., Chu, Quyen, Pippen, John, Sloan, Jeff, Raymond, Marilyn·2014·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the personal and professional characteristics associated with career satisfaction and burnout among US oncologists. Methods: Between October 2012 and March 2013, the American Society of Clinical Oncology conducted a survey of US oncologists evaluating burnout and career satisfaction. The survey sample included equal numbers of men and women and represented all career stages. Results: Of 2,998 oncologists contacted, 1,490 (49.7%) returned surveys (median age of respondents, 52 years; 49.6% women). Among the 1,117 oncologists (37.3% of overall sample) who completed full-length surveys, 377 (33.8%) were in academic practice (AP) and 482 (43.2%) in private practice (PP), with the remainder in other settings. Oncologists worked an average of 57.6 hours per week (AP, 58.6 hours per week; PP, 62.9 hours per week) and saw a mean of 52 outpatients per week. Overall, 484 oncologists (44.7%) were burned out on the emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization domain of Maslach Burnout Inventory (AP, 45.9%; PP, 50.5%; P = .18). Hours per week devoted to direct patient care was the dominant professional predictor of burnout for both PP and AP oncologists on univariable and multivariable analyses. Although a majority of oncologists were satisfied with their career (82.5%) and specialty (80.4%) choices, both measures of career satisfaction were lower for those in PP relative to AP (all P < .006). Conclusion: Overall career satisfaction is high among US oncologists, albeit lower for those in PP relative to AP. Burnout rates among oncologists seem similar to those described in recent studies of US physicians in general. Those oncologists who devote the greatest amount of their professional time to patient care seem to be at greatest risk for burnout.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2013.51.8480

Cites

55 of 55 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

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

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Lemkau J, 1994, Fam Pract Res J, 14, 213
  2. Grunfeld E, 2000, Cmaj, 163, 166
  3. 10.1037/0278-6133.12.2.93 · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.12.2.93 · Paper page

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Shanafelt, T. D., Gradishar, W. J., Kosty, M., Satele, D., Chew, H., Horn, L., Clark, B., Hanley, A. E., Chu, Q., Pippen, J., Sloan, J., & Raymond, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2014-03-01
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
678-686
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2137061453
Cited by
396
References
55
FWCI
49.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Burnout and Career Satisfaction Among US Oncologists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.51.8480
The paper
Shanafelt, T. D., Gradishar, W. J., Kosty, M., Satele, D., Chew, H., Horn, L., Clark, B., Hanley, A. E., Chu, Q., Pippen, J., Sloan, J., & Raymond, M. (2014). Burnout and Career Satisfaction Among US Oncologists. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.51.8480

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.