↓ Skip to main content

Mindfulness, Resilience, and Burnout Subtypes in Primary Care Physicians: The Possible Mediating Role of Positive and Negative Affect

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mindfulness, Resilience, and Burnout Subtypes in Primary Care Physicians: The Possible Mediating Role of Positive and Negative Affect
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01895
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesús Montero-Marin, Mattie Tops, Rick Manzanera, Marcelo M. Piva Demarzo, Melchor Álvarez de Mon, Javier García-Campayo

Abstract

Primary care health professionals suffer from high levels of burnout. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the associations of mindfulness and resilience with the features of the burnout types (overload, lack of development, neglect) in primary care physicians, taking into account the potential mediating role of negative and positive affect. A cross-sectional design was used. Six hundred and twenty-two Spanish primary care physicians were recruited from an online survey. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and Burnout Clinical Subtype Questionnaire (BCSQ-12) questionnaires were administered. Polychoric correlation matrices were calculated. The unweighted least squares (ULS) method was used for developing structural equation modeling. Mindfulness and resilience presented moderately high associations (φ = 0.46). Links were found between mindfulness and overload (γ = -0.25); resilience and neglect (γ = -0.44); mindfulness and resilience, and negative affect (γ = -0.30 and γ = -0.35, respectively); resilience and positive affect (γ = 0.70); negative affect and overload (β = 0.36); positive affect and lack of development (β = -0.16). The links between the burnout types reached high and positive values between overload and lack of development (β = 0.64), and lack of development and neglect (β = 0.52). The model was a very good fit to the data (GFI = 0.96; AGFI = 0.96; RMSR = 0.06; NFI = 0.95; RFI = 0.95; PRATIO = 0.96). Interventions addressing both mindfulness and resilience can influence burnout subtypes, but their impact may occur in different ways, potentially mediated by positive and negative affect. Both sorts of trainings could constitute possible tools against burnout; however, while mindfulness seems a suitable intervention for preventing its initial stages, resilience may be more effective for treating its advanced stages.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 283 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 18%
Student > Bachelor 38 13%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 53 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 86 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 67 24%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 70 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,786,758
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,494
of 29,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,721
of 363,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#119
of 416 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 363,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 416 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.