Cited by 37Occupational Health and BurnoutHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout Research

Burnout in Transplant Nurses

Jesse, Michelle T., Abouljoud, Marwan S., Hogan, Kathy, Eshelman, Anne·2015·Progress in Transplantation

Abstract

Context—: Burnout is a response to chronic strain within the workplace and is common across nursing professions. Little has been published about burnout in organ transplant nurses. Objective—: To report the prevalence of the 3 main components of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment) in organ transplant nurses and to examine factors that contribute to the development of burnout in transplant nurses. Design—: Cross-sectional survey of transplant nurses (recruited via listservs) on professional and personal demographics, decisional authority, psychological job demands, supervisor and coworker support, frequency and comfort with difficult patient interactions, and burnout. Participants—: 369 transplant nurses. Results—: About half reported high levels of emotional exhaustion, 15.7% reported high levels of depersonalization, and 51.8% reported low levels of personal accomplishment. Working more hours per week, lower decisional authority, greater psychological job demands, lower perceived supervisor support, and greater frequency and discomfort with difficult patient interactions were significant predictors of emotional exhaustion. Greater frequency and discomfort with difficult patient interactions were significant predictors of depersonalization. Younger age, lower decisional authority, and greater discomfort with difficult patient interactions were predictors of low personal accomplishment. Conclusions—: The study provides strong evidence of the presence of burnout in transplant nurses and opportunities for focused and potentially very effective interventions aimed at reducing burnout.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7182/pit2015213

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 37

Authors
Jesse, M. T., Abouljoud, M. S., Hogan, K., & Eshelman, A.
Affiliations
Henry Ford Health (US)
Corresponding author
Jesse, Michelle T.
Venue
Progress in Transplantation
Published
2015-09
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
196-202
ISSN
  • 0905-9199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-9248
  • 2164-6708
OpenAlex
W1730502039
Cited by
37
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
9.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Progress in Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Henry Ford Health System
  • International Transplant Nurses Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
burnout, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, job demands, supervisor support, coworker support, nursing workload, predictors of burnout
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Burnout, Professional, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Michigan, Middle Aged, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Prevalence, Organ Transplantation, Young Adult

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