review · Anaesthesia
Burnout among practising anaesthesia providers carries significant risks for workforce well-being and patient safety. A review of 50 studies covering 35,599 qualified anaesthesia providers, including both physicians and non-physicians, found an overall median burnout prevalence of 42 percent. Most reviewed investigations relied on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, yet methods for classifying burnout varied widely, with 15 distinct criteria identified. A re-analysis of five datasets demonstrated that reported prevalence for an identical population could swing between 3.1 percent and 69.9 percent depending purely on the threshold used. In addition, the majority of studies used non-random sampling and presented unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. More consistent reporting of subscale scores, validated classification tools, and robust sampling are essential to accurately measure burnout and design targeted workforce interventions.
Burnout among healthcare staff directly influences clinician welfare and patient safety. However, this research shows that current prevalence estimates are highly inconsistent due to fragmented definitions and weak study designs. Understanding true burnout rates requires standardised measurement, ensuring healthcare systems can accurately detect distress and direct resources towards effective, evidence-based support programmes for their medical workforce.
The abstract does not indicate an application pathway or commercial product, as it focuses entirely on synthesising existing prevalence literature and highlighting methodological limitations in current burnout measurement.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
INTRODUCTION: Burnout is characterised by emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal accomplishment. Anaesthesia providers are at particular risk of experiencing burnout, with implications for workforce well-being and patient safety. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of burnout among practising anaesthesia providers and critically appraise the methodological quality of the underlying evidence. METHODS: Databases were searched for English-language studies reporting prevalence of burnout in anaesthesia providers. Definitions of burnout, measurement tools used and prevalence estimates were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: We included 50 studies, encompassing 35,599 fully qualified anaesthesia providers (31,500 physicians and 4099 non-physicians); 43 (86%) studies used the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Overall median (IQR [range]) prevalence of burnout was 42 (21-59 [9-99])%. Burnout dichotomisation varied substantially, with 15 distinct and reproducible Maslach Burnout Inventory-based criteria identified. Re-analysis of five datasets showed prevalence estimates for the same population ranged from 3.1% to 69.9%, depending on the criteria applied. Most studies used non-random sampling and were judged to be at unclear or high-risk of bias across many domains. DISCUSSION: Prevalence estimates of burnout vary widely due to inconsistent measurement and interpretation. Standardised reporting of subscale scores and use of validated binary classification tools would improve comparability. Robust sampling strategies are needed to inform targeted interventions.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1111/anae.70359
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
