Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34765504›Full record

ReviewTranslational pediatrics2021

What is the prevalence and risk factors of burnout among pediatric intensive care staff (PICU)? A review.

Liz Crowe, Jeanine Young, M Jane Turner

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Children With Severe Neurologic Impairment and Their Families in the PICU: A Secondary Qualitative Analysis to Assess Clinician-Family Collaboration and Mutuality.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liz CroweSchool of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Jeanine YoungSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia.
M Jane TurnerDiscipline of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
University of Queensland · AUUniversity of the Sunshine Coast · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Staff in the paediatric intensive care unit work with children and their families in an area of high acuity, mortality, and morbidity. There is complexity due to technological advancements and confronting psychosocial situations. With increasing reports of the threat of burnout to healthcare professionals it is imperative to understand the prevalence of burnout and the determinants of risk factors for staff to work in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in order to inform interventions that reduce risk and support growth and wellbeing of this specialised workforce. We conducted electronic searches of PUBMED, Medline, CINAHL and PsychINFO. Studies meeting eligibility inclusion criteria comprised English text, publication dates 1995 to 2019, use of standardized measures to assess prevalence and risk factors for burnout where the PICU staff data was reported separately and contained sample sizes ≥10 PICU staff. Two reviewers independently identified and extracted citations and assessed the quality of papers using two standardised reporting tools. Twenty studies were included in the final review. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies a descriptive account of the studies was developed. Outcomes reported included prevalence and levels of burnout reported across professional disciplines, reported scoring criteria for burnout, risk and protective factors for burnout, comparative populations, systems and social context associated with burnout and study strengths and limitations. Most studies were cross-sectional, used a single measure of burnout and focussed on either physicians or nurses. Of the 20 studies reported 62% reported high burnout, 19% moderate burnout, and 19% reported low levels of burnout. Inconsistency was identified in adherence to recommended cut-off scores or reporting for the categorisation of burnout, which contributed to a lack of clarity in the interpretation of prevalence and severity. Reports of factors associated with increased risk and likely protective factors for burnout were often contradictory suggesting that burnout may be situational; dependent upon personal, environmental, leadership, cultural and patient factors within the PICU. This review revealed that determining levels and risk of burnout in PICU staff remains problematic. Further research which examines the experiences of all members of the multidisciplinary team and identification of factors that affect the development of burnout, including those which are protective, is required.

Indexed as

burnoutoccupational stressPediatric intensive care unitpsychological

Identifiers

PMID34765504
PMCPMC8578753
OpenAlexW3166365094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.