ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing factors that influence perceived burnout in postdoctoral fellows and identifying recommendations to support their well-being.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile current evidence suggests rates of stress and burnout among healthcare professionals and graduate trainees are up to 50%, higher than the general population, there is a critical gap in the literature concerning factors which influence well-being among postdoctoral fellows in health sciences programs. This exploratory study aims to identify factors influencing well-being and burnout among these postdoctoral fellows and identify recommendations to improve their well-being.
methodsA two-stage sampling approach was used: (1) Purposive sample of postdoctoral fellows employed at a public university were recruited to participate in semi-structured focus groups to assess workplace factors which influence their perceived burnout and well-being and to solicit recommendations to improve well-being; (2) Stratified sampling was used to assign participants into focus groups by industry-sponsored or academic (non-industry-sponsored) positions to explore experiences that may be unique to these groups. Inductive coding and thematic analysis of Zoom transcripts were used.
resultsSeven postdoctoral fellows participated in three focus group sessions, with two industry-sponsored fellows in one group, three academic fellows in one group, and two academic fellows in one group. Participants identified insufficient resources, difficult transition, and workload and program structure as factors contributing to their perceived burnout. Factors contributing to their well-being included reasonable supervisor expectations, personal and professional support, and resource support. Participant recommendations to improve well-being included institutional initiatives and resources, additional non-supervisor support, and workload strategies.
conclusionsThis study expands upon the sparse literature on postdoctoral fellows by exploring factors that contribute to their perceived well-being and burnout, as well as provide suggestions to support their well-being. Findings contribute to the broader conversation of postdoctoral fellow well-being and burnout and informs the academy of focused strategies to improve their well-being and reduce 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.