Abstract
References
- Manaf, M. R. A., Shaharuddin, M. A.-A., Nawi, A. M., Tauhid, N. M., Othman, H., Rahman, M. R. A., Yusoff, H. M., Safian, N., Ng, P. Y., Manaf, Z. A., Kadir, N. B. A., Yanasegaran, K., Basir, S. M. A., Ramakrishnappa, S., Ariff, M. I., & Ganasegeran, K. (2021). Perceived Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety and Stress amongst Staff in a Malaysian Public University: A Workers Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211874
- Marijanovic, I., Kraljevic, M., Buhovac, T., Ceric, T., Mekic Abazovic, A., Alidžanovic, J., Gojkovic, Z., & Sokolovic, E. (2021). Use of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) Questionnaire to Assess Levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress in Healthcare and Administrative Staff in 5 Oncology Institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina During the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic. Medical Science Monitor?: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 27, e930812. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.930812
- Guidetti, G., Converso, D., Sanseverino, D., & Ghislieri, C. (2022). Return to Work during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Study on the Role of Job Demands, Job Resources, and Personal Resources upon the Administrative Staff of Italian Public Universities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041995
Title: Evaluating Stress and Burnout in Medical School Administrative Staff: A Survey study in a California Allopathic Medical School
Keywords: Burnout, Medical School Administrative Staff, Mental Health
Authors: Jonathan Shaw, Charles Lai, Peter Bota, Jonathan Townsend
Abstract
Introduction
While Burnout in Healthcare is a major issue currently, there has been limited research on the well-being of the support and administrative workers that are a crucial part of the medical system. The literature on medical school administrative staff (MSAS) burnout is further complicated by different definitions of “staff,” which can also encompass faculty and medical staff. This study aims to provide some insights into the various stressors MSAS face by examining the prevalence of and correlations between burnout factors in MSAS at a California allopathic medical school.
Methods
120 MSAS employees, defined as employees in non-curricular roles, were contacted anonymously via email list to participate in this study. Two identical survey rounds were sent on February 8th and March 8th 2023, with each form remaining open for responses for 4 weeks. Each survey was broken into 3 sections containing, respectively, a 13-question proprietary perception scale, 2 questions from the 2021 AAMC Staff Engagement Survey and 3 proprietary questions about MSAS-specific aspects of their work, and the 19-question-long Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Due to privacy and retaliation concerns, no demographic questions were included.
Results
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the CBI Client-related (p = .083), Work-related (p = .189), and Personal (p = .082) burnout scores are normally distributed, unlike all of the proprietary data. No significant differences between survey rounds was found in either the One-Way ANOVA of Personal (p = .654), Work-related (p = .354), and Client-related (p = .272) subscales or the Kruskal-Wallis tests of proprietary question responses. Personal and Work-related (r(41) = .891, p < .001), Personal and Client-related (r(41) = .692, p < .001), and Work-related and Client-related burnout scores (r(41) = .831, p < .001) were found to correlate by Pearson’s correlation. Multiple of the proprietary questions were found to correlate by Spearman’s correlation. The means for the Personal (57.1) and Work (53.4) indicated burnout (CBI cutoff is score ≥50), whereas the Client subscale mean is much less (42.4), albeit the sample size is too small to be conclusive.
Conclusions
In light of limited burnout research on MSAS, this study provides valuable insights on the prevalence of burnout in medical school administration. In particular, the unusually high level of Personal and Work-related burnout among MSAS implies that the high levels of stress in healthcare may have as much to do with systemic and cultural factors as with the inherent stress of medical work. The consistent correlations and distinctions in subscales indicate that burnout is a lasting issue that need to be solved with plans tailored to each role and situation. Especially given the wide variety of MSAS roles, tailored interventions are crucial in supporting this essential but overlooked portion of the medical school and healthcare workforce.
Keywords: Burnout, Medical School Administrative Staff, Mental Health
Authors: Jonathan Shaw, Charles Lai, Peter Bota, Jonathan Townsend
Abstract
Introduction
While Burnout in Healthcare is a major issue currently, there has been limited research on the well-being of the support and administrative workers that are a crucial part of the medical system. The literature on medical school administrative staff (MSAS) burnout is further complicated by different definitions of “staff,” which can also encompass faculty and medical staff. This study aims to provide some insights into the various stressors MSAS face by examining the prevalence of and correlations between burnout factors in MSAS at a California allopathic medical school.
Methods
120 MSAS employees, defined as employees in non-curricular roles, were contacted anonymously via email list to participate in this study. Two identical survey rounds were sent on February 8th and March 8th 2023, with each form remaining open for responses for 4 weeks. Each survey was broken into 3 sections containing, respectively, a 13-question proprietary perception scale, 2 questions from the 2021 AAMC Staff Engagement Survey and 3 proprietary questions about MSAS-specific aspects of their work, and the 19-question-long Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Due to privacy and retaliation concerns, no demographic questions were included.
Results
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the CBI Client-related (p = .083), Work-related (p = .189), and Personal (p = .082) burnout scores are normally distributed, unlike all of the proprietary data. No significant differences between survey rounds was found in either the One-Way ANOVA of Personal (p = .654), Work-related (p = .354), and Client-related (p = .272) subscales or the Kruskal-Wallis tests of proprietary question responses. Personal and Work-related (r(41) = .891, p < .001), Personal and Client-related (r(41) = .692, p < .001), and Work-related and Client-related burnout scores (r(41) = .831, p < .001) were found to correlate by Pearson’s correlation. Multiple of the proprietary questions were found to correlate by Spearman’s correlation. The means for the Personal (57.1) and Work (53.4) indicated burnout (CBI cutoff is score ≥50), whereas the Client subscale mean is much less (42.4), albeit the sample size is too small to be conclusive.
Conclusions
In light of limited burnout research on MSAS, this study provides valuable insights on the prevalence of burnout in medical school administration. In particular, the unusually high level of Personal and Work-related burnout among MSAS implies that the high levels of stress in healthcare may have as much to do with systemic and cultural factors as with the inherent stress of medical work. The consistent correlations and distinctions in subscales indicate that burnout is a lasting issue that need to be solved with plans tailored to each role and situation. Especially given the wide variety of MSAS roles, tailored interventions are crucial in supporting this essential but overlooked portion of the medical school and healthcare workforce.
Title: Evaluating Stress and Burnout in Medical School Administrative Staff: A Survey study in a California Allopathic Medical School
Keywords: Burnout, Medical School Administrative Staff, Mental Health
Authors: Jonathan Shaw, Charles Lai, Peter Bota, Jonathan Townsend
Abstract
Introduction
While Burnout in Healthcare is a major issue currently, there has been limited research on the well-being of the support and administrative workers that are a crucial part of the medical system. The literature on medical school administrative staff (MSAS) burnout is further complicated by different definitions of “staff,” which can also encompass faculty and medical staff. This study aims to provide some insights into the various stressors MSAS face by examining the prevalence of and correlations between burnout factors in MSAS at a California allopathic medical school.
Methods
120 MSAS employees, defined as employees in non-curricular roles, were contacted anonymously via email list to participate in this study. Two identical survey rounds were sent on February 8th and March 8th 2023, with each form remaining open for responses for 4 weeks. Each survey was broken into 3 sections containing, respectively, a 13-question proprietary perception scale, 2 questions from the 2021 AAMC Staff Engagement Survey and 3 proprietary questions about MSAS-specific aspects of their work, and the 19-question-long Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Due to privacy and retaliation concerns, no demographic questions were included.
Results
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the CBI Client-related (p = .083), Work-related (p = .189), and Personal (p = .082) burnout scores are normally distributed, unlike all of the proprietary data. No significant differences between survey rounds was found in either the One-Way ANOVA of Personal (p = .654), Work-related (p = .354), and Client-related (p = .272) subscales or the Kruskal-Wallis tests of proprietary question responses. Personal and Work-related (r(41) = .891, p < .001), Personal and Client-related (r(41) = .692, p < .001), and Work-related and Client-related burnout scores (r(41) = .831, p < .001) were found to correlate by Pearson’s correlation. Multiple of the proprietary questions were found to correlate by Spearman’s correlation. The means for the Personal (57.1) and Work (53.4) indicated burnout (CBI cutoff is score ≥50), whereas the Client subscale mean is much less (42.4), albeit the sample size is too small to be conclusive.
Conclusions
In light of limited burnout research on MSAS, this study provides valuable insights on the prevalence of burnout in medical school administration. In particular, the unusually high level of Personal and Work-related burnout among MSAS implies that the high levels of stress in healthcare may have as much to do with systemic and cultural factors as with the inherent stress of medical work. The consistent correlations and distinctions in subscales indicate that burnout is a lasting issue that need to be solved with plans tailored to each role and situation. Especially given the wide variety of MSAS roles, tailored interventions are crucial in supporting this essential but overlooked portion of the medical school and healthcare workforce.
Keywords: Burnout, Medical School Administrative Staff, Mental Health
Authors: Jonathan Shaw, Charles Lai, Peter Bota, Jonathan Townsend
Abstract
Introduction
While Burnout in Healthcare is a major issue currently, there has been limited research on the well-being of the support and administrative workers that are a crucial part of the medical system. The literature on medical school administrative staff (MSAS) burnout is further complicated by different definitions of “staff,” which can also encompass faculty and medical staff. This study aims to provide some insights into the various stressors MSAS face by examining the prevalence of and correlations between burnout factors in MSAS at a California allopathic medical school.
Methods
120 MSAS employees, defined as employees in non-curricular roles, were contacted anonymously via email list to participate in this study. Two identical survey rounds were sent on February 8th and March 8th 2023, with each form remaining open for responses for 4 weeks. Each survey was broken into 3 sections containing, respectively, a 13-question proprietary perception scale, 2 questions from the 2021 AAMC Staff Engagement Survey and 3 proprietary questions about MSAS-specific aspects of their work, and the 19-question-long Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Due to privacy and retaliation concerns, no demographic questions were included.
Results
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the CBI Client-related (p = .083), Work-related (p = .189), and Personal (p = .082) burnout scores are normally distributed, unlike all of the proprietary data. No significant differences between survey rounds was found in either the One-Way ANOVA of Personal (p = .654), Work-related (p = .354), and Client-related (p = .272) subscales or the Kruskal-Wallis tests of proprietary question responses. Personal and Work-related (r(41) = .891, p < .001), Personal and Client-related (r(41) = .692, p < .001), and Work-related and Client-related burnout scores (r(41) = .831, p < .001) were found to correlate by Pearson’s correlation. Multiple of the proprietary questions were found to correlate by Spearman’s correlation. The means for the Personal (57.1) and Work (53.4) indicated burnout (CBI cutoff is score ≥50), whereas the Client subscale mean is much less (42.4), albeit the sample size is too small to be conclusive.
Conclusions
In light of limited burnout research on MSAS, this study provides valuable insights on the prevalence of burnout in medical school administration. In particular, the unusually high level of Personal and Work-related burnout among MSAS implies that the high levels of stress in healthcare may have as much to do with systemic and cultural factors as with the inherent stress of medical work. The consistent correlations and distinctions in subscales indicate that burnout is a lasting issue that need to be solved with plans tailored to each role and situation. Especially given the wide variety of MSAS roles, tailored interventions are crucial in supporting this essential but overlooked portion of the medical school and healthcare workforce.
Washington, DC
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}