Establishing Crosswalks Between Common Measures of Burnout in US Physicians.
burnout measurement
physician burnout
physician well-being
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
20
12
2020
accepted:
11
02
2021
pubmed:
2
4
2021
medline:
12
3
2022
entrez:
1
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Physician burnout is often assessed by healthcare organizations. Yet, scores from different burnout measures cannot currently be directly compared, limiting the interpretation of results across organizations or studies. To link common measures of burnout to a single metric in psychometric analyses such that group-level scores from different assessments can be compared. Cross-sectional survey. US practices. A total of 1355 physicians sampled from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. We linked the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) and Mini-Z Single-Item Burnout (MZSIB) scale to the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) in item response theory (IRT) fixed-calibration and equipercentile analyses and created crosswalks mapping PFI and MZSIB scores to corresponding MBI scores. We evaluated the accuracy of the results by comparing physicians' actual MBI scores to those predicted by linking and described the closest cut-point equivalencies across scales linked to the same MBI subscale using the resulting crosswalks. IRT linking produced the most accurate results and was used to create crosswalks mapping (1) PFI Work Exhaustion (PFI-WE) and MZSIB scores to MBI Emotional Exhaustion (MBI-EE) scores and (2) PFI Interpersonal Disengagement (PFI-ID) scores to MBI Depersonalization (MBI-DP) scores. The commonly used MBI-EE raw score cut-point of ≥27 corresponded most closely with respective PFI-WE and MZSIB raw score cut-points of ≥7 and ≥3. The commonly used MBI-DP raw score cut-point of ≥10 corresponded most closely with a PFI-ID raw score cut-point of ≥9. Our findings allow healthcare organizations using the PFI or MZSIB to compare group-level scores to historical, regional, or national MBI scores (and vice-versa).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physician burnout is often assessed by healthcare organizations. Yet, scores from different burnout measures cannot currently be directly compared, limiting the interpretation of results across organizations or studies.
OBJECTIVE
To link common measures of burnout to a single metric in psychometric analyses such that group-level scores from different assessments can be compared.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING
US practices.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 1355 physicians sampled from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.
MAIN MEASURES
We linked the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) and Mini-Z Single-Item Burnout (MZSIB) scale to the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) in item response theory (IRT) fixed-calibration and equipercentile analyses and created crosswalks mapping PFI and MZSIB scores to corresponding MBI scores. We evaluated the accuracy of the results by comparing physicians' actual MBI scores to those predicted by linking and described the closest cut-point equivalencies across scales linked to the same MBI subscale using the resulting crosswalks.
KEY RESULTS
IRT linking produced the most accurate results and was used to create crosswalks mapping (1) PFI Work Exhaustion (PFI-WE) and MZSIB scores to MBI Emotional Exhaustion (MBI-EE) scores and (2) PFI Interpersonal Disengagement (PFI-ID) scores to MBI Depersonalization (MBI-DP) scores. The commonly used MBI-EE raw score cut-point of ≥27 corresponded most closely with respective PFI-WE and MZSIB raw score cut-points of ≥7 and ≥3. The commonly used MBI-DP raw score cut-point of ≥10 corresponded most closely with a PFI-ID raw score cut-point of ≥9.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings allow healthcare organizations using the PFI or MZSIB to compare group-level scores to historical, regional, or national MBI scores (and vice-versa).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33791938
doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06661-4
pii: 10.1007/s11606-021-06661-4
pmc: PMC8904666
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
777-784Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2019 Dec;49(12):100662
pubmed: 31562054
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 4;170(11):784-790
pubmed: 31132791
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Sep;94(9):1681-1694
pubmed: 30803733
Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Dec;90(12):1600-13
pubmed: 26653297
BMC Med Educ. 2010 Jan 27;10:8
pubmed: 20105312
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 25;378(4):312-314
pubmed: 29365296
JAMA. 2018 Sep 18;320(11):1131-1150
pubmed: 30326495
Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;42(1):11-24
pubmed: 29196982
Assessment. 2011 Sep;18(3):263-83
pubmed: 21697139
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Oct 8;172(18):1377-85
pubmed: 22911330
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Mar;28(3):421-7
pubmed: 23129161
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Oct;48(4):639-48
pubmed: 24698661
Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Jan;92(1):129-146
pubmed: 27871627
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jun 1;4(1):42
pubmed: 32488344
Med Care. 1999 Nov;37(11):1174-82
pubmed: 10549620
Med Care. 1999 Nov;37(11):1140-54
pubmed: 10549616
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15;171(8):555-567
pubmed: 31590181
Psychol Assess. 2014 Jun;26(2):513-27
pubmed: 24548149
Acad Med. 2011 Jul;86(7):907-14
pubmed: 21642810
Healthc (Amst). 2020 Sep;8(3):100451
pubmed: 32919589