Dataset Information

Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evaluation.

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.

SUBMITTER: Dolan ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4395610 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evaluation.

Dolan Emily D ED Mohr David D Lempa Michele M Joos Sandra S Fihn Stephan D SD Nelson Karin M KM Helfrich Christian D CD

Journal of general internal medicine 20141202 5

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare a non-proprietary, single-item burnout measure to a single item from the MBI Emotional Exhaustion (MBI:EE) subscale that ...[more]

PMID: 25451989

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare.ObjectiveTo identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure.DesignCross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017).ParticipantsFour hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems.Main measuresThe MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009).Key resultsSimilar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity.ConclusionsPoint estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING:Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS:10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE:Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS:Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]?=?1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR?=?1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR?=?1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR?=?1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR?=?1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS:Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVES:A single-item sleep quality scale (SQS) was developed as a simple and practical sleep quality assessment and psychometrically evaluated. METHODS:SQS measurement characteristics were evaluated using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and morning questionnaire-insomnia (MQI) according to prespecified analysis plans in separate clinical studies of patients with insomnia and depression. Patients with insomnia (n = 70) received 4 weeks' usual care with an FDA-approved hypnotic agent; patients with depression (n = 651) received 8 weeks' active or experimental therapy. RESULTS:Concurrent criterion validity (correlation with measures of a similar construct) was demonstrated by strong (inverse) correlations between the SQS and MQI (week 1 Pearson correlation -.76) and PSQI (week 8 Goodman-Kruskal correlation -.92) sleep quality items in populations with insomnia and depression, respectively. In patients with depression, stronger correlations between the SQS and PSQI core sleep quality components versus other items supported convergent/divergent construct validity (similarity/dissimilarity to related/unrelated measures). Known-groups validity was evidenced by decreasing mean SQS scores across those who sleep normally, those borderline to having sleep problems, and those with problems sleeping. Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) was .62 during a 4-week period of sleep stability in patients with insomnia and .74 in stable patients with depression (1 week). Effect sizes (standardized response means) for change from baseline were 1.32 (week 1) and .67 (week 8) in populations with insomnia and depression, respectively. Mean SQS changes from baseline to week 8 convergently decreased across groups of patients with depression categorized by level of PSQI sleep quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS:The SQS possesses favorable measurement characteristics relative to lengthier or more frequently administered sleep questionnaires in patients with insomnia and depression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registry: ClincalTrials.gov, Title: Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder With MK0869, Identifier: NCT00034983, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00034983.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the psychometric properties and construct validity of a survey of primary care providers' (PCPs') experience of specialty care coordination, which is a counterpart to our existing survey ("CSC-Specialist") that measures specialists' experience of specialty care coordination.Data sourcesWe surveyed PCPs from Veterans Health Administration medical centers and community-based outpatient clinics nationwide (N = 1576) in April 2018.Study designWe developed candidate items through literature review, existing surveys, PCP interviews, and expert opinion. We used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to develop scales and multivariable linear regression to determine their association with PCPs' overall experience of coordination.Data collectionThe online survey included 23 candidate scale items about specialty care coordination and a single item asking respondents to rate their overall experience of specialty care coordination on a 0-10 scale. All VA PCPs were eligible. We sent survey invitations to PCPs following local Section Chiefs' email introduction (N = 926) and by directly emailing two random samples (N = 400 and N = 6653), overall response rate across the three nonoverlapping samples = 24 percent.Principal findingsAnalyses identified 20 items forming 6 scales with strong psychometric properties and predictive power for overall coordination. Two scales are identical to CSC-Specialist scales: "Communication" (k = 3, α = 0.87) and "Data Transfer" (k = 2, α = 0.92); one is similar: "Relationships and Collaboration" (k = 6, α = 0.90). The three remaining scales address the PCP's unique perspective: "Role Clarity" (k = 3, α = 0.85), "Role Agreement" (k = 3, α = 0.75), and "Making Referrals" (k = 3, α = 0.75). The six scales together explained 67 percent of the variance in PCPs' overall coordination experience with specialists.ConclusionsThe Coordination of Specialty Care-Primary Care Provider Survey (CSC-PCP) is a novel 20-item survey that can be used in quality improvement or health services research, alone or in combination with the CSC-Specialist, to evaluate coordination of care as experienced by either or both participants.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although the importance of care coordination (CC) is well-recognized, cancer patients often receive poorly coordinated care across varied care settings and different oncology providers. Efforts to improve cancer care are hampered by lack of adequate measures. In this two-part, mixed-method study, we describe the development, refinement, and validation of a new care coordination instrument (CCI) designed to assess cancer patients' perception of CC. METHODS:In Study 1, an initial CCI was developed incorporating questions based on literature review. The items were then modified following four field tests conducted in a large academic hospital with oncology nurses (n?=?20) and cancer patients (n?=?120). This modified instrument was used to determine whether the CCI was able to distinguish CC between two practices (30 GI and 30 myeloma patients) within the same hospital setting. In Study 2, 68 patients receiving community-based care participated in seven focus groups. Based on these discussions, the CCI items were again refined, and psychometric evaluation was conducted to assess the quality of the instrument. RESULTS:Based on field tests, 3 domains of the CCI, Communication, Navigation, and Operational, were defined as critical components of CC. The Operational domain evaluates efficiency of care and is unique to this CCI. The field test demonstrated that GI patients reported significantly better CC Overall and for the Communication and Navigation domains (all p?<?.05). In Study 2, patients expressed concordance with the CCI items and their CC experiences, establishing validity of the CCI. Qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that the items with the highest frequencies of participants' comments were related to the concepts of Navigator, Team, Survey, and Communication. Quantitative analysis identified items with a limited response range or high rates of "neutral" responses; accordingly, those items were removed. The final CCI survey is a 29 item, multiple-choice questionnaire with excellent reliability, Cronbach's ??=?.922. CONCLUSIONS:We developed a novel, patient-centered tool with excellent psychometric properties that can be utilized across varied practice settings to assess patients' perception of cancer care coordination. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not required; retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03594006 20 July 2018.

Dataset Information

Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evaluation.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main methods

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure