ArticleBJGP open2024
Workload and GP burnout: a survey and register-based study in Danish general practice.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Burnout prevalence in 2012, 2018 and 2024 among general practitioners in Norway and factors associated with burnout.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Identifying factors influencing acceptance of artificial intelligence among general practitioners in Danish general practice: a cross-sectional web-based survey study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Spiritual Integrity as a Mediator Between Workload and Burnout: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Physicians in Türkiye.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis That Seeks to Describe and Understand the Personal Experience of Burnout in General Practitioners.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
- Healthcare users' evaluations of general practice: a survey among Danish men aged 45-70 years.BJGP open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBurnout is common among GPs. Previous studies have indicated an association between high workload and burnout among doctors.
aimTo assess the risk of burnout among single-handed GPs in Denmark in relation to self-reported and register-based workload. DESIGN &
settingQuestionnaire data from 312 Danish single-handed GPs and register data on their patients and provided services.
methodBurnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). A composite burnout score of quartile points was calculated. The questionnaire provided information on working hours. Register data included number of services and patient list size. Association between composite burnout score and workload was estimated with binomial regression analyses adjusting for the GP's age and sex, and social deprivation score of their patient lists.
resultsWorking >5 days a week in practice increased the risk of a high burnout score (adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.62 to 3.37). Spending >7.5 hours a day on patient-related tasks increased the risk of a high burnout score. The highest score was among GPs spending 8.5-9.5 hours a day on patient-related tasks (adjusted RR = 2.01, 95% CI = 0.90 to 4.51), although not statistically significant. There was no association between number of services and risk of burnout.
conclusionWorking 5 days a week in practice significantly increased the risk of burnout in Danish single-handed GPs. Spending >7.5 hours a day on patient-related tasks tended to increase the risk. We found no association between a high number of services and increased risk of burnout.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.