Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40693186›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development

Burnout and Psychological Safety: A Questionnaire Study of Medical Students.

Aziz Bitar, Jens Boman, Emelie Kristoffersson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Aziz BitarDepartment of Clinical Science, Professional Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0591-6505
Jens BomanDepartment of Clinical Science, Professional Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Emelie KristofferssonDepartment of Clinical Science, Professional Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8404-9623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Psychological safety-defined as the perception that a group environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking-could influence the development of burnout among medical students. This study, therefore, sought to investigate the prevalence of burnout, the level of psychological safety, and their association in this population. Methods: We surveyed undergraduate medical students ( Results: A total of 457 medical students (62.6% women) completed the questionnaire (response rate: 48%). Of the participants, 51.4% scored above the cut-off for burnout risk, and among these, 25.6% were at very high risk. Women scored significantly higher on burnout and lower on psychological safety than men. A significant negative association was found between psychological safety and burnout, with psychological safety accounting for an additional 14.3% of the variance in burnout scores. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that more than half of the surveyed medical students are at risk for burnout and that lower levels of psychological safety are associated with higher levels of burnout. Furthermore, women appear to be at higher risk for burnout and perceive medical school as less psychologically safe than male students. While longitudinal studies are needed to assess the causality between low psychological safety and burnout, our results provide impetus for developing interventions to prevent burnout and addressing an eventual lack of psychological safety in medical school.

Indexed as

Amy Edmondson’s team psychological safety surveyburnoutburnout assessment toolpsychological safetyquestionnaireundergraduate medical students

Identifiers

PMID40693186
PMCPMC12277557

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.