Burnout in Transplant Nurses
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Teachers who hold illogical beliefs and judgments about their professional roles habitually perceive their jobs as stressful compared to those who hold rational beliefs.
“Hence, teachers who cling to cleave to illogical beliefs and judgments about their professional roles habitually perceive their jobs as stressful when compared to those who hold rational beliefs[34].”
From Clinical benefits of rational-emotive stress management therapy for job burnout and dysfunctional distress of special education teachers (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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