| Title |
Worklife and Wellness in Academic General Internal Medicine: Results from a National Survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-016-3720-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Linzer, Sara Poplau, Stewart Babbott, Tracie Collins, Laura Guzman-Corrales, Jeremiah Menk, Mary Lou Murphy, Kay Ovington |
| Abstract |
General internal medicine (GIM) careers are increasingly viewed as challenging and unsustainable. We aimed to assess academic GIM worklife and determine remediable predictors of stress and burnout. We conducted an email survey. Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in 15 GIM divisions participated. A ten-item survey queried stress, burnout, and work conditions such as electronic medical record (EMR) challenges. An open-ended question assessed stressors and solutions. Results were categorized into burnout, high stress, high control, chaos, good teamwork, high values alignment, documentation time pressure, and excessive home EMR use. Frequencies were determined for national data, Veterans Affairs (VA) versus civilian populations, and hospitalist versus ambulatory roles. A General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) evaluated associations with burnout. A formal content analysis was performed for open-ended question responses. Of 1235 clinicians sampled, 579 responded (47 %). High stress was present in 67 %, with 38 % burned out (burnout range 10-56 % by division). Half of respondents had low work control, 60 % reported high documentation time pressure, half described too much home EMR time, and most reported very busy or chaotic workplaces. Two-thirds felt aligned with departmental leaders' values, and three-quarters were satisfied with teamwork. Burnout was associated with high stress, low work control, and low values alignment with leaders (all p < 0.001). The 45 VA faculty had less burnout than civilian counterparts (17 % vs. 40 %, p < 0.05). Hospitalists described better teamwork than ambulatory clinicians and fewer hospitalists noted documentation time pressure (both p < 0.001). Key themes from the qualitative analysis were short visits, insufficient support staff, a Relative Value Unit mentality, documentation time pressure, and undervaluing education. While GIM divisions overall demonstrate high stress and burnout, division rates vary widely. Sustainability efforts within GIM could focus on visit length, staff support, schedule control, clinic chaos, and EMR stress. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 42% |
| Canada | 6 | 16% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Israel | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 34% |
| Scientists | 10 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 247 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 26 | 11% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 64 | 26% |
| Unknown | 60 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 78 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 11% |
| Psychology | 20 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 14% |
| Unknown | 72 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2024.
All research outputs
#474,304
of 25,552,205 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#366
of 8,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,642
of 312,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,552,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.