Dataset Information

Identifying and preventing burnout in young oncologists, an overwhelming challenge in the COVID-19 era: a study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Young oncologists are at particular risk of professional burnout, and this could have a significant impact on their health and care of their patients. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced rapid changes in professionals' jobs and training, with the consequent physical and psychological effects. We aimed to characterize burnout levels and determinants in young oncologists, and the effects of the pandemic on their training and health.

Methods

Two online surveys were conducted among oncology residents and young oncology specialists in Spain. The first addressed professional burnout and its determinants before the COVID-19 pandemic, while the second analyzed the impact of the pandemic on health care organization, training, and physical and psychological health in the same population.

Results

In total, 243 respondents completed the first survey, and 263 the second; 25.1% reported significant levels of professional burnout. Burnout was more common among medical oncology residents (28.2%), mainly in their second year of training. It was significantly associated with a poor work-life balance, inadequate vacation time, and the burnout score. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) were reassigned to COVID-19 care and 84.3% of residents missed part of their training rotations. Overall, 17.2% of this population reported that they had contracted COVID-19, 37.3% had scores indicating anxiety, and 30.4% moderate to severe depression. Almost a quarter of young oncologists (23.3%) had doubts about their medical vocation.

Conclusions

Burnout affects a considerable number of young oncologists. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on causes of burnout, making it even more necessary to periodically monitor it to define appropriate detection and prevention strategies.

SUBMITTER: Jimenez-Labaig P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8332651 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWomen represent an increasing proportion of the oncology workforce; however, globally this does not translate into leadership roles, reflecting disparities in career opportunities between men and women. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) undertook a survey to investigate gender disparity in the Spanish oncology context.DesignAn online survey was made available to SEOM medical oncologists between February and May 2019. It included demographics, professional context and achievements, parenthood and family conciliation issues, workplace gender bias, and approaches to address disparities.ResultsOf the 316 eligible respondents, 71.5% were women, 59.5% were aged 45 or younger, and 66.1% had children. Among women, 12.4% were division or unit heads, compared with 45.5% of men, with most women (74.3%) being attending medical oncologists, compared with 45.5% of men. More males were professors (34.4% versus 14.2% of females), had a PhD (46.7% versus 28.8%), and/or had led clinical research groups (41.1% versus 9.7%). Spending time overseas after completing a residency was also more common for men than women (34.4% versus 20.4%). Professional satisfaction was similar between genders, driven primarily by patient care and intellectual stimulation. More women (40.7%) considered parenthood to have a strong negative impact on their career, compared with men (9.0%). Main perceived barriers to gender equality included a lack of work-life balance (72.6% women, 44.4% men), bias of peers and superiors (50.0% women, 18.9% men), and different career goals (41.2% women, 24.4% men). Preferred solutions included educational programs and scholarships (52.9%), communication and leadership training (35.8%), childcare at conferences (33.2%), and postmaternity return-to-work incentives (32.0%).ConclusionThere is a clear paucity of equal opportunities for female oncologists in Spain. This can be addressed by encouraging professional development and merit recognition particularly for younger female oncologists, and empowering women to be involved in management and leadership of institutions and professional societies.

Project description:IntroductionOncology care professionals are exposed to high levels of stress that can lead to burnout. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of burnout among nurses, oncologists and radiographers working in oncology patient care during the COVID -19 pandemic.MethodsOur electronic questionnaire was sent to e-mail contacts registered in the system of the Hungarian Society of Oncologists and to all oncology staff via an internal information system in each cancer center. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, which measures depersonalization (DP), emotional exhaustion (EE), and personal accomplishment (PA). Demographic and work-related characteristics were collected in our self-designed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, two-sample t-tests, analyzes of variance, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed.ResultsA total of 205 oncology care workers' responses were analyzed. Oncologists (n = 75) were found to be significantly more committed to DP and EE (p = 0.001; p = 0.001). Working more than 50 h per week and being on-call had a negative effect on the EE dimension (p = 0.001; p = 0.003). Coming up with the idea of working abroad had a negative effect on all three dimensions of burnout (p ≤ 0.05). Respondents who did not leave their job due to their current life situation had significantly higher DE, EE, and lower PA (p ≤ 0.05). Intention to leave current profession was specific in (n = 24/78; 30.8%) of nurses (p = 0.012).ConclusionOur results suggest that male gender, being an oncologist, working more than 50 h per week and taking on call duties have a negative impact on individual burnout. Future measures to prevent burnout should be integrated into the professionals' work environment, regardless of the impact of the current pandemic.Implications for practicePrevention and oncopsychological training should be developed gradually at the organisational or personal level to avoid early burnout of professionals.

Project description:PurposeTo assess US radiation oncologists' views on practice scope and the ideal role of the radiation oncologist (RO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) conducted a scope of practice survey.Methods and materialsIn spring 2019, ASTRO distributed an online survey to 3822 US RO members. The survey generated 984 complete responses (26% response rate) for analysis. Face validity testing confirmed respondents were representative of ASTRO's RO membership.ResultsNearly all respondents agreed that "ROs should be leaders in oncologic care." Respondents indicated the ideal approach to patient care was to provide "an independent opinion on radiation therapy and other treatment options" (82.5%) or "an independent opinion on radiation therapy but not outside of it" (16.1%), with only 1.4% favoring provision of "radiation therapy at the request of the referring physician" as the ideal approach. Actual practice fully matched the ideal approach in 18.2% of respondents. For the remaining majority, actual practice did not always match the ideal and comprised a mix of approaches that included providing radiation at the referring physician's request 24.0% of the time on average. Reasons for the mismatch included fear of alienating referring physicians and concern for offering an unwelcome opinion. One-fifth of respondents expressed a desire to expand the scope of service though interspecialty politics and insufficient training were potential barriers. Respondents interested in expanding scope of practice were on average earlier in their career (average years in practice 13.3) than those who were not interested (average years in practice 17.2, P < .001). Radiopharmaceuticals administration, medical marijuana and anticancer medications prescribing, and RO inpatient service represented areas of interest for expansion but also knowledge gaps.ConclusionsThese results provide insight regarding US ROs' scope of practice and attitudes on the ideal role of the RO. For most ROs, to provide an independent opinion on treatment options represented the ideal approach to care, but barriers such as concern of alienating referring physicians prevented many from fully adhering to their ideal in practice. Actual practice commonly comprised a mixed approach, including the least favored scenario of delivering radiation at the referring physician's request one-quarter of the time, highlighting the influence of interspecialty politics on practice behavior. Advocacy for open communication and meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration presents an actionable solution toward a more balanced relationship with other specialties as ROs strive to better fulfill the vision of being leaders in oncologic care and being our best for our patients. The study also identified interest in expanding into nontraditional domains that offer opportunities to address unmet needs in the cancer patient's journey and elevate radiation oncology within the increasingly value-based US health care system.

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist's report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication.MethodsA 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation.ResultsA total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1-3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists' service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists' service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist.ConclusionStructured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.