Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36591073›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022

Burnout among general practitioners, a systematic quantitative review of the literature on determinants of burnout and their ecological value.

Nicolaas Cornelis Verhoef, Robert Jan Blomme

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Nicolaas Cornelis VerhoefFaculty of Management, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Robert Jan BlommeFaculty of Management, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Open University of the Netherlands · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Burnout is a major social and economic problem, specifically among general practitioners (GPs). The amount of literature on generic determinants of burnout is impressive. However, the size of the library on occupation-specific determinants of burnout among GPs are minimal. With the present study, we aim to gain insight into the existing academic literature on generic and occupation-specific determinants of burnout among GPs. Moreover, we aim to contribute to the ecological validity of this study by emphasizing occupation-specific determinants. We conducted a systematic quantitative literature review in which we followed the PRISMA statement and performed quality assessments according to the AXIS, CASP, MMAT, and 3-MIN procedures. Furthermore, we assessed frequency effect sizes (FES) and intensity effect sizes (IES). By performing Fisher's exact tests, we investigated whether the quality of the studies influenced the outcomes. An extensive literature search revealed 60 eligible studies among which 28 strong studies, 29 moderate studies, and 3 weak studies were identified. Analyzing those studies delivered 75 determinants of burnout, of which 33 were occupation-specific for GPs. According to the average FES, occupation-specific determinants play a significant role in acquiring burnout compared to the generic determinants. The results of the Fisher exact tests provided evidence that the quality of the 60 studies did not affect the outcomes. We conclude that it is surprising that a profession with such an important social position and such a high risk of burnout has been so little researched.

Indexed as

ecological validitygeneral practitionersgeneric determinantsoccupation-specific determinantssystematic quantitative literature review

Identifiers

PMID36591073
PMCPMC9798333
OpenAlexW4311516815

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.