Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32586364›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2020

Repeated assessment of work-related exhaustion: the temporal stability of ratings in the Lund University Checklist for Incipient Exhaustion.

Roger Persson, Kai Österberg

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roger PerssonDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden. roger.persson@psy.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7208-2944
Kai ÖsterbergDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, 22100, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1907-8812
Lund University · SE

Funding

Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare 2011-0236
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveScreening inventories are important tools in clinical settings and research but may be sensitive to temporary fluctuations. Therefore, we revisited data from a longitudinal study with the Lund University Checklist for Incipient Exhaustion (LUCIE) that comprised occupationally active individuals (n = 1355; 27-52 years; 57% women) and one initial paper and pencil survey and 10 subsequent equally spaced online surveys. In the present study we examine to what extent the LUCIE scores changed across 3 years (11 assessments) and whether episodes of temporary elevated LUCIE scores (LTE) coincided with reports of negative or positive changes at work or in private life.

resultsIn the total sample, the prevalence rates for the four LUCIE classifications of signs of increasing exhaustion (from no exhaustion to possible exhaustion disorder) ranged from 65.4-73.0%, 16.6-20.9%, 6.2-9.6%, and 3.4-5.0%. Of 732 individuals screened for LTE episodes, 16% had an LTE episode. The LTE episodes typically coincided with reports of adverse changes at work or, to a lesser extent, in private life. Thus, LUCIE classifications appear reliable and lend themselves to repeated use on the same individuals, or group of individuals. Even single episodes of elevated LUCIE scores seem appropriately to indicate adverse reactions to the work situation.

Indexed as

AdultBurnout, ProfessionalFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedProdromal SymptomsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsBig fiveBurnoutExhaustion disorderLUCIEMental healthPersonalityScreeningStressTraitWork

Identifiers

PMID32586364
PMCPMC7318754
OpenAlexW3037133832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.