Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32917488›Full record

ArticleProgres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie2020

When residents work less, they feel better: Lessons learned from an unprecedent context of lockdown.

A Degraeve, S Lejeune, T Muilwijk, F Poelaert, M Piraprez, I Svistakov, T Roumeguère, European Society of Residents in Urology Belgium (ESRU-B)

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Surgical trainee burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors.

A DegraeveDepartment of Urology, Saint-Luc University Clinics, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: amandine.degraeve@student.uclouvain.be.
S LejeuneInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Saint-Luc University Clinics, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
T MuilwijkDepartment of Urology and Department of Development and Regeneration, University Clinics of Leuven, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
F PoelaertDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
M PiraprezDepartment of Urology, CHR de la Citadelle, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
I SvistakovDepartment of Urology, University Clinics of Brussels, Erasme hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
T RoumeguèreDepartment of Urology, University Clinics of Brussels, Erasme hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
European Society of Residents in Urology Belgium (ESRU-B)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWith the COVID-19 outbreak activities of urology departments have been limited to non-deferrable procedures impacting the daily program of residents in urology. We assessed the psychological impact of the lockdown on Belgian residents in urology and their resounding on the quality of the training. MATERIAL AND

methodsA self-administered anonymous questionnaire assessing the risk of burnout in a pandemic situation and its impact on the quality of the training was e-mailed to the members of the European Society of Residents in Urology of Belgium (ESRU-B). We used the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory score which assesses the different dimensions of burnout (personal (CBIP), professional (CBIPro), relational (CBIR)). Several questions evaluating impact on residents' health and apprehension of the future were included. The survey lasted for 5 days. Comparison of parameters before and during the coronavirus crisis was made using paired samples t-test or Chi

resultsFifty percent (62/126) of the ESRU-B members replied to the questionnaire. If 93% of the responders reported a negative impact on the quality of their practical training (CI95=[0.07-1.10]; P=0.83), 56% and 61.7% reported a positive impact of the crisis on their life and on their theoretical training respectively. Burnout risk scores were significantly reduced (P<0.001) for each dimension 7.26 to 3.40 (CBIP), 9.02 to 4.35 (CBIPro) and 4.42 to 3.03 (CBIR) respectively.

conclusionDespite a negative impact on the daily work quality, the decrease in activity induced by the lockdown did not have a negative psychological impact on Belgian residents in urology but stress the opportunity to review the current training system to be better balanced between practice and theoretical formation.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultBelgiumBurnout, ProfessionalBurnout, PsychologicalHumansInternship and ResidencySurveys and QuestionnairesUrologyAnxiétéAnxietyAssessmentBurnoutCOVID-19ÉvaluationFormationImpact PsychologiqueInternesPracticePratiquePsychological impactResidentsStressTrainingUrologieUrology

Identifiers

PMID32917488
PMCPMC7833413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.