Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214836
Title: An evaluation of the performance of five burnout screening tools: A multicentre study in anaesthesiology, intensive care, and ancillary staff
Authors: Ong, John
Lim, Wan Yen
Doshi, Kinjal
Zhou, Man
Sng, Ban Leong 
Tan, Li Hoon
Ong, Sharon 
Keywords: Burn out
Burnout
Diagnosis
Screening
Stress
Issue Date: 21-Oct-2021
Publisher: MDPI
Citation: Ong, John, Lim, Wan Yen, Doshi, Kinjal, Zhou, Man, Sng, Ban Leong, Tan, Li Hoon, Ong, Sharon (2021-10-21). An evaluation of the performance of five burnout screening tools: A multicentre study in anaesthesiology, intensive care, and ancillary staff. Journal of Clinical Medicine 10 (21) : 4836. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214836
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Burnout is an important occupational hazard and early detection is paramount in preventing negative sequelae in physicians, patients, and healthcare systems. Several screening tools have been developed to replace lengthy diagnostic tools for large-scale screening, however, comprehensive head–to–head evaluation for performance and accuracy are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of five burnout screening tools, including a novel rapid burnout screening tool (RBST). This was a cross-sectional study involving 493 hospital staff (anaesthesiology and intensive care doctors, nurses, and ancillary staff) at the COVID-19 frontline across four hospitals in Singapore between December 2020 and April 2021. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used as the reference standard. Five burnout screening tools, the single-item MBI measure of burnout (SI-MBI), dual-item MBI (DI-MBI), abbreviated MBI (aMBI), Single Item Burnout Question (SIBOQ), and the RBST, were administered via a 36-item online survey. Tools were administered simultaneously and responses were anonymised. Burnout prevalence was 19.9%. The RBST and the SI-MBI had the two highest accuracies (87.8% and 81.9% respectively) and AUROC scores (0.86, 95% CI: 0.83–0.89 and 0.86, 95% CI: 0.82–0.89 respectively). However, the accuracy of the RBST was significantly higher than the SI-MBI (p < 0.0001), and it had the highest positive likelihood ratio (+LR = 7.59, 95% CI 5.65–10.21). Brief screening tools detect burnout albeit with a wide range of accuracy. This can strain support services and resources. The RBST is a free screening tool that can detect burnout with a high degree of accuracy. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Source Title: Journal of Clinical Medicine
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/231999
ISSN: 2077-0383
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10214836
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_3390_jcm10214836.pdf4.38 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
checked on Nov 29, 2022

Page view(s)

10
checked on Dec 1, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons